|
|
Van de Weerd, H. A., Seaman, S., Wheeler, K., Goddard, P., & Mclean, B. (2012). Use of artificial drinkers by unhandled semi-feral ponies. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 139(1-2), 86–95.
Abstract: This study investigated drinking behaviour of unhandled, semi-feral Dartmoor ponies. Aspects studied were drinking behaviour, latency to drink from novel unfamiliar drinkers after transport, preferences for different types of artificial water drinkers, effects of mixing with unfamiliar ponies and group size, on drinking behaviour, and the effect of a simulated market on the latency to drink. Ponies were tested in groups of three or six animals, or as individuals in test pens that were equipped with three water drinkers: bucket, automatic drinking bowl, flowing water trough. Behaviour was recorded using time-lapse video. An individual pony drank on average 10 l per day. Ponies also drank, but at a lower rate, during the night. The latencies to drink after 4.5 h of transport showed large variation, but most ponies drank within the first hour after being transported (all groups 80.5 ± 32.94 min, mean ± SEM). In the individual choice tests, the preferred drinkers were the bucket and the flowing water trough, but not the automatic drinking bowl (drinking time 25.2 ± 4.66, 11.5 ± 4.26, 2.4 ± 2.23 min for bucket, trough and bowl respectively, mean ± SEM; paired t-tests, bowl versus other drinkers, all tests p < 0.02). A possible reason for the avoidance of the automatic bowl was the noise it made when filling. After mixing a group of three ponies with a group of three unfamiliar animals, the ponies did not express their individual drinker preferences anymore. The use of the previously preferred bucket decreased significantly and the use of the initially, non-preferred, bowl increased significantly. This was likely caused by the fact that ponies were either intentionally or accidentally obstructing drinkers in certain areas of the pen and unfamiliar ponies did not want to push past them. In the simulated market, the differences in latencies to drink between ponies in the home pen and market groups did not reach significance. No significant effect of group size (groups of three versus six ponies) on drinking behaviour was detected. The results have implications for situations where only automatic water bowls are provided, such as during pony sales at livestock markets. Preventing ponies from expressing their drinking choice, either by offering non-preferred drinkers or by mixing with unfamiliar animals, could adversely affect their welfare especially if this happens in conjunction with other stressful events such as transport and markets, and potentially weaning.
|
|
|
|
Seaman, S. C., Davidson, H. P. B., & Waran, N. K. (2002). How reliable is temperament assessment in the domestic horse (Equus caballus)? Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 78(2-4), 175–191.
Abstract: Differences in behavioural characteristics between individuals of the same species are often described as being due to the temperament of the individuals. These differences can have enormous implications for welfare with some individuals apparently being able to adapt to environmental challenge more easily than others. Such differences have resulted in animals often being described as either `active' copers, which try to escape from or remove an aversive stimulus, or `passive' copers, which show no outward signs of a situation being aversive, thus, appearing to be unaffected. Tests previously developed to assess the temperament of animals have been criticised for several reasons. Behaviour is often recorded and categorised using methods that are not objective and tests are generally carried out once with no consideration of whether or not behavioural responses are consistent over time. This study takes these factors into account. The behaviour of 33 horses was recorded in three types of test--an arena test, response to a person and response to an object. In order to test whether or not responses were consistent over time, the tests were repeated three times with an average of 9 days between trials. Test results were validated using responses from questionnaires completed by the farm team leader. The data were analysed using an initial principal component analysis (PCA) and factor analysis. The horses were found to behave consistently over the three trials in their responses in the arena test. The responses to the person test and the object test were similar to each other; however, these responses were not consistent over trials. The behaviour in the arena test was unable to be used to make a prediction of behaviour in the person and object tests and vice versa. The responses shown by the horses did not enable them to be categorised as either active or passive copers. Behavioural responses in the tests were not predictive of the response to a startle test (water spray), nor could they be used to predict status or response to being reintroduced to the group after testing. There was no relationship between the responses in the tests and the ratings given by the farm team leader. It was concluded that horses vary widely in their responses to artificial behavioural tests, with only the responses to an open-field arena test being consistent over time, and therefore, the only type of test which can indicate some core factor of temperament.
|
|
