|
Edman, J. D. (1971). Host-feeding patterns of Florida mosquitoes. I. Aedes, Anopheles, Coquillettidia, Mansonia and Psorophora. J Med Entomol, 8(6), 687–695.
|
|
Tempelis, C. H., & Nelson, R. L. (1971). Blood-feeding patterns of midges of the Culicoides variipennis complex in Kern County, California. J Med Entomol, 8(5), 532–534.
|
|
Stout, I. J., Clifford, C. M., Keirans, J. E., & Portman, R. W. (1971). Dermacentor variabilis (Say) (Acarina: Ixodidae) established in southeastern Washington and northern Idaho. J Med Entomol, 8(2), 143–147.
|
|
Nelson, G. S. (1970). Onchocerciasis. Adv Parasitol, 8, 173–224.
|
Graf, P., König von Borstel, U., & Gauly, M. (2013). Importance of personality traits in horses to breeders and riders. Journal of Veterinary Behavior: Clinical Applications and Research, 8(5), 316–325.
Abstract: Abstract Especially in horses, personality traits play an important role because horses' behavior influences their quality as a riding partner. In contrast to that, no objective assessment of horses' personality traits is available at present. Although initial efforts are made in this field, a successful implementation of behavior tests into horse performance tests depends on the acceptance of the riders and breeders. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to assess the importance of personality traits to breeders and riders as well as the degree of riders' acceptance of a temperament test as a more objective means of assessing equine personality traits. Using a web-based survey consisting of a 41-item questionnaire, a total of 1087 competition riders (49.3%), breeders (39.0%), leisure riders (37.9%), and professional riders (8.6%) of 13 countries were recruited to participate in the survey. When asked to split 1000 Euro among the different traits listed in the breeding goal, respondents clearly assigned more weight to the personality-related character and temperament traits (least squares mean ± standard error; P < 0.005: €228.7 ± 17.6) and willingness to work (€123.0 ± 9.6) compared with performance traits, such as the quality of trot (€77.7 ± 6.9) or show jumping (€68.0 ± 12.3). Nevertheless, expected differences in relative weighting of traits between the different groups of riders were confirmed (e.g., character and temperament: €209.3 ± 6.1 [leisure riders] vs. €149.7 ± 5.4 [competition riders], P < 0.0001). When asking why personality traits are so important, the simplification of daily work with the horses (47.9%) and relationship between horse and human (44.9%) as well as a more comfortable and safer handling (31.5%) were most commonly listed. As much as 45.6% of all participants see quality problems with the current assessment and suggested the evaluation of all breeding animals (30.1%), followed by a better standardization of assessment procedures (25.5%) and a move to more objective criteria such as the introduction of a temperament test (20.3%) for solving the problems. The present survey revealed that behavior traits are very important to all groups of riders and breeders, although there are diverse opinions about it. According to the participants, there is a need for and a high potential in the move toward more objective assessment methods of horses' personality traits, and participants would support a restructuring of the current assessment.
|
Wolter, R., Stefanski, V., & Krueger, K. (2018). Parameters for the Analysis of Social Bonds in Horses. Animals, 8(11), 191.
Abstract: Social bond analysis is of major importance for the evaluation of social relationships in group housed horses. However, in equine behaviour literature, studies on social bond analysis are inconsistent. Mutual grooming (horses standing side by side and gently nipping, nuzzling, or rubbing each other), affiliative approaches (horses approaching each other and staying within one body length), and measurements of spatial proximity (horses standing with body contact or within two horse-lengths) are commonly used. In the present study, we assessed which of the three parameters is most suitable for social bond analysis in horses, and whether social bonds are affected by individual and group factors. We observed social behaviour and spatial proximity in 145 feral horses, five groups of Przewalski�s horses (N = 36), and six groups of feral horses (N = 109) for 15 h per group, on three days within one week. We found grooming, friendly approaches, and spatial proximity to be robust parameters, as their correlation was affected only by the animals� sex (GLMM: N = 145, SE = 0.001, t = �2.7, p = 0.008) and the group size (GLMM: N = 145, SE < 0.001, t = 4.255, p < 0.001), but not by the horse breed, the aggression ratio, the social rank, the group, the group composition, and the individuals themselves. Our results show a trend for a correspondence between all three parameters (GLMM: N = 145, SE = 0.004, t = 1.95, p = 0.053), a strong correspondence between mutual grooming and friendly approaches (GLMM: N = 145, SE = 0.021, t = 3.922, p < 0.001), and a weak correspondence between mutual grooming and spatial proximity (GLMM: N = 145, SE = 0.04, t = 1.15, p = 0.25). We therefore suggest either using a combination of the proactive behaviour counts mutual grooming and friendly approaches, or using measurements of close spatial proximity, for the analysis of social bonds in horses within a limited time frame.
|
McGreevy, P., Berger, J., De Brauwere, N., Doherty, O., Harrison, A., Fiedler, J., et al. (2018). Using the Five Domains Model to Assess the Adverse Impacts of Husbandry, Veterinary, and Equitation Interventions on Horse Welfare. Animals, 8(3), 41.
Abstract: The aim of this study was to conduct a series of paper-based exercises in order to assess the negative (adverse) welfare impacts, if any, of common interventions on domestic horses across a broad range of different contexts of equine care and training. An international panel (with professional expertise in psychology, equitation science, veterinary science, education, welfare, equestrian coaching, advocacy, and community engagement; n = 16) met over a four-day period to define and assess these interventions, using an adaptation of the domain-based assessment model. The interventions were considered within 14 contexts: C1 Weaning; C2 Diet; C3 Housing; C4 Foundation training; C5 Ill-health and veterinary interventions (chiefly medical); C6 Ill-health and veterinary interventions (chiefly surgical); C7 Elective procedures; C8 Care procedures; C9 Restraint for management procedures; C10 Road transport; C11 Activity—competition; C12 Activity—work; C13 Activity—breeding females; and C14 Activity—breeding males. Scores on a 1–10 scale for Domain 5 (the mental domain) gathered during the workshop were compared with overall impact scores on a 1–10 scale assigned by the same panellists individually before the workshop. The most severe (median and interquartile range, IQR) impacts within each context were identified during the workshop as: C1 abrupt, individual weaning (10 IQR 1); C2 feeding 100% low-energy concentrate (8 IQR 2.5); C3 indoor tie stalls with no social contact (9 IQR 1.5); C4 both (i) dropping horse with ropes (9 IQR 0.5) and forced flexion (9 IQR 0.5); C5 long-term curative medical treatments (8 IQR 3); C6 major deep intracavity surgery (8.5 IQR 1); C7 castration without veterinary supervision (10 IQR 1); C8 both (i) tongue ties (8 IQR 2.5) and (ii) restrictive nosebands (8 IQR 2.5); C9 ear twitch (8 IQR 1); C10 both (i) individual transport (7.00 IQR 1.5) and group transport with unfamiliar companions (7 IQR 1.5); C11 both (i) jumps racing (8 IQR 2.5) and Western performance (8 IQR 1.5); C12 carriage and haulage work (6 IQR 1.5); C13 wet nurse during transition between foals (7.5 IQR 3.75); and C14 teaser horse (7 IQR 8). Associations between pre-workshop and workshop scores were high, but some rankings changed after workshop participation, particularly relating to breeding practices. Domain 1 had the weakest association with Domain 5. The current article discusses the use of the domain-based model in equine welfare assessment, and offers a series of assumptions within each context that future users of the same approach may make when assessing animal welfare under the categories reported here. It also discusses some limitations in the framework that was used to apply the model.
|
Vitale, V., Balocchi, R., Varanini, M., Sgorbini, M., Macerata, A., Sighieri, C., et al. (2013). The effects of restriction of movement on the reliability of heart rate variability measurements in the horse (Equus caballus). J. Vet. Behav., 8(5), 400–403.
Abstract: Analysis of heart rate variability (HRV) is a noninvasive approach for investigating the sympathovagal balance of the autonomic nervous system. In recent years, HRV has been increasingly evaluated in animal research. In horses, it has been suggested that basal resting conditions can be achieved by restraining them. The aim of this study was to verify how restriction of movement influences HRV i2n horses. Ten healthy standardbred mares were used to measure the electrocardiographic signal under 2 conditions: free to move in the stall and restrained in the stock. Results indicate that the restriction of movement is associated with increased nervous system sympathetic activity not consistent with resting conditions.
|
Francis-Smith, K., & Wood-Gush, D. G. M. (1977). Copropgagia as seen in thoroughbred foals. Equine Vet J, 9(3), 155–157.
Abstract: Four Thoroughbred foals were seen to quickly eat part of the faeces deposited by their own dams on some 40 per cent of the mare-defaecating occasions observed between the second and fifth week after birth. They did not do it before or after this period. This behaviour was thought to be a feeding pattern which formed a normal part of the foal's development.
|
Barton, M. D., & Hughes, K. L. (1984). Ecology of Rhodococcus equi. Vet Microbiol, 9(1), 65–76.
Abstract: A selective broth enrichment technique was used to study the distribution of Rhodococcus equi in soil and grazing animals. Rhodococcus equi was isolated from 54% of soils examined and from the gut contents, rectal faeces and dung of all grazing herbivorous species examined. Rhodococcus equi was not isolated from the faeces or dung of penned animals which did not have access to grazing. The isolation rate from dung was much higher than from other samples and this was found to be due to the ability of R. equi to multiply more readily in dung. Delayed hypersensitivity tests were carried out on horses, sheep and cattle, but only horses reacted significantly. The physiological characteristics of R. equi and the nature of its distribution in the environment suggested that R. equi is a soil organism.
|
