|
|
Baragli, P., Mariti, C., Petri, L., De Giorgio, F., & Sighieri, C. (2011). Does attention make the difference? Horses' response to human stimulus after 2 different training strategies. J Vet Behav Clin Appl Res, 6(1), 31–38.
Abstract: We hypothesized that in an open environment, horses cope with a series of challenges in
their interactions with human beings. If the horse is not physically constrained and is free to move
in a small enclosure, it has additional options regarding its behavioral response to the trainer. The
aim of our study was to evaluate the influence of 2 different training strategies on the horse’s behavioral
response to human stimuli. In all, 12 female ponies were randomly divided into the following 2
groups: group A, wherein horses were trained in a small enclosure (where indicators of the level of
attention and behavioral response were used to modulate the training pace and the horse’s control over
its response to the stimuli provided by the trainer) and group B, wherein horses were trained in a closed
environment (in which the trainer’s actions left no room for any behavioral response except for the one
that was requested). Horses’ behavior toward the human subject and their heart rate during 2 standardized
behavioral tests were used to compare the responses of the 2 groups. Results indicated that the
horses in group A appeared to associate human actions with a positive experience, as highlighted by
the greater degree of explorative behavior toward human beings shown by these horses during the tests.
The experience of the horses during training may have resulted in different evaluations of the person, as
a consequence of the human’s actions during training; therefore, it seems that horses evaluate human
beings on daily relationship experiences.
|
|
|
|
Hartmann, E., Keeling, L. J., & Rundgren, M. (2011). Comparison of 3 methods for mixing unfamiliar horses (Equus caballus). J Vet Behav Clin Appl Res, 6(1), 39–49.
Abstract: Horses are likely to exhibit aggression when meeting for the first time. Therefore, this study compared 3 methods for mixing horses to evaluate their effectiveness in reducing aggressive interactions: (1) mixing pairs of horses in a paddock (P, 10 minutes, 15 tests), (2) introducing 1 unfamiliar horse to a pair of familiar, resident horses in a paddock (PP, 10 minutes, 15 tests), (3) allowing limited physical contact between pairs of horses for a short period of pre-exposure in neighboring boxes (B, 5 minutes, 16 tests) before mixing them in a paddock (BP, 10 minutes 16 tests). A total of 16 Swedish Standardbred mares, aged 6-18 years (mean age ± SD: 11 ± 4.4), were included in the study. Half of the horses were familiar with each other (resident horses, n = 8), whereas the other half were bought in from a variety of sources (unfamiliar horses, n = 8). Social interactions, consisting of behaviors from the sender, the receiver, and the subsequent sender's response, were recorded continuously as frequencies. There were no differences in the frequencies of aggressive behaviors between the 3 mixing methods, including those aggressive behaviors in which physical contact had been attempted (kick, strike). Although resident horses were overall more aggressive (median number of aggressive behaviors per horse, 62; Q1, 36; Q3, 68.5) than unfamiliar horses (median per horse, 4; Q1, 2; Q3, 12.5) during all tests (U = 97, P = 0.003), none of the 62 tests needed to be terminated. Unfamiliar horses did not receive more aggression from resident horses in PP (mean per test ± SD: 5.1 ± 3.1) than in P (mean per test ± SD: 6.4 ± 4.9) (t = 0.63, P = 0.544). However, the behavior “attack” was more frequent in PP (median per test, 2; Q1, 0; Q3, 5) than in P (median per test, 0; Q1, 0; Q3, 1) (U = 282, P = 0.042), and “flee” was more frequent in PP (median per test, 6; Q1, 4; Q3, 8) than in P (median per test, 1; Q1, 0; Q3, 6) (U = 290, P = 0.018). Pre-exposure in boxes did not reduce aggression in BP (median per test, 7; Q1, 4.3; Q3, 11.8) as compared with P (median per test, 6; Q1, 2; Q3, 16) (U = 264, P = 0.767), but during pre-exposure in B tests, horses exchanged more nonaggressive (median per test, 2; Q1, 0.3; Q3, 4) than aggressive (median frequency of aggressive behavior, 0; Q1, 0; Q3, 1) (W = 71, P = 0.013) and mixed interactions (median per test, 0; Q1, 0; Q3, 1) (W = 92, P = 0.016) through the opening. Results suggest mixing an unfamiliar horse with 2 resident horses at the same time instead of one by one may be preferable. In this way, the total aggression received by the unfamiliar horse will potentially be less, even though aggressive interactions may be more intense.
|
|
