Abstract: Summary Domestication has provided the horse with food, shelter, veterinary care and protection, allowing individuals an increased chance of survival. However, the restriction of movement, limited breeding opportunities and a requirement to expend energy, for the benefit of another species, conflict with the evolutionary processes which shaped the behaviour of its predecessors. The behaviour of the horse is defined by its niche as a social prey species but many of the traits which ensured the survival of its ancestors are difficult to accommodate in the domestic environment. There has been a long association between horses and man and many features of equine behaviour suggest a predisposition to interspecific cooperation. However, the importance of dominance in human understanding of social systems has tended to overemphasise its importance in the human-horse relationship. The evolving horse-human relationship from predation to companionship, has resulted in serial conflicts of interest for equine and human participants. Only by understanding the nature and origin of these conflicts can ethologists encourage equine management practices which minimise deleterious effects on the behaviour of the horse.

Abstract: Dominance hierarchies in horses primarily influence priority access to limited resources of any kind, resulting in predictable contest outcomes that potentially minimize aggressive encounters and associated risk of injury. Levels of aggression in group-kept horses under domestic conditions have been reported to be higher than in their feral counterparts but can often be attributed to suboptimal management. Horse owners often express concerns about the risk of injuries occurring in group-kept horses, but these concerns have not been substantiated by empirical investigations. What has not yet been sufficiently addressed are human safety aspects related to approaching and handling group-kept horses. Given horse's natural tendency to synchronize activity to promote group cohesion, questions remain about how group dynamics influence human-horse interactions. Group dynamics influence a variety of management scenarios, ranging from taking a horse out of its social group to the prospect of humans mimicking the horse's social system by taking a putative leadership role and seeking after an alpha position in the dominance hierarchy to achieve compliance. Yet, there is considerable debate about whether the roles horses attain in their social group are of any relevance in their reactions to humans. This article reviews the empirical data on social dynamics in horses, focusing on dominance and leadership theories and the merits of incorporating those concepts into the human-horse context. This will provide a constructive framework for informed debate and valuable guidance for owners managing group-kept horses and for optimizing human-horse interactions.

Abstract: Wolves returned to Germany in 2000, leading to fear in German horse owners that their horses could be in danger of wolf attacks or panic-like escapes from pastures when sighting wolves. However, reports from southern European countries indicate that wolf predation on horses diminishes with increasing presence of wildlife. Therefore, we conducted a long-term, filed observation between January 2015 and July 2022 on 13 non breeding riding horses, mares and geldings, kept permanently on two pastures within the range of wildlife and a stable wolf pack with annual offspring. Wildlife cameras at the fences of the pastures made 984 times recordings of wolves and 3151 times recordings of wildlife in and around the pastures. Between 1 January 2022 and 23 March 2022 we observed two stable horse groups. Pasture 1 was grazed by five horses of mixed breed, four mares and one gelding, with the median age of 8 years (min. = 6y, max. = 29y). Pasture 2 was grazed by eight heavy warmbloods and draught horses, three mares and five geldings, with the median age of 16 years (min. = 13y, max. = 22y). During this period no wolf was recorded at pasture 2, but wild boar several times, whereas at pasture 1, wolves were recorded 89 times, and for the wildlife mostly hare. Wolves may have avoided pasture 2 because of the presence of wild boar or because the large group of older, heavy breed horses may have formed a stable, protective group. The latter needs to be confirmed in a follow-up field observation, which records anti-predator behavior and welfare indicators in horses. In conclusion, wolves did not attack the mature horses on pastures with plenty of wildlife and the horses did not respond to the presence of wolves with visible signs of reduced welfare or panic. This indicates that wolves may prefer to prey on easily accessible wildlife around and at horse pastures and that Central European horses become accustom to the presence of non-hunting wolves.

Abstract: There is evidence that more than 47% of the sports horse population in normal work may be lame, but the lameness is not recognized by owners or trainers. An alternative means of detecting pain may be recognition of behavioral changes in ridden horses. It has been demonstrated that there are differences in facial expressions in nonlame and lame horses. The purpose of this study was to develop a whole horse ethogram for ridden horses and to determine whether it could be applied repeatedly by 1 observer (repeatability study, 9 horses) and if, by application of a related pain behavior score, lame horses (n = 24) and nonlame horses (n = 13) could be differentiated. It was hypothesized that there would be some overlap in pain behavior scores among nonlame and lame horses; and that overall, nonlame horses would have a lower pain behavior score than lame horses. The ethogram was developed with 117 behavioral markers, and the horses were graded twice in random order by a trained specialist using video footage. Overall, there was a good correlation between the 2 assessments (P < 0.001; R2 = 0.91). Behavioral markers that were not consistent across the 2 assessments were omitted, reducing the ethogram to 70 markers. The modified ethogram was applied to video recordings of the nonlame horses and lame horses (ethogram evaluation). There was a strong correlation between 20 behavioral markers and the presence of lameness. The ethogram was subsequently simplified to 24 behavioral markers, by the amalgamation of similar behaviors which scored similarly and by omission of markers which showed unreliable results in relation to lameness. Following this, the maximum individual occurrence score for lame horses was 14 (out of 24 possible markers), with a median and mean score of 9 (±2 standard deviation) compared with a maximum score of 6 for nonlame horses, with a median and mean score of 2 (±1.4). For lame horses, the following behaviors occurred significantly more (P < 0.05, chi-square): ears back, mouth opening, tongue out, change in eye posture and expression, going above the bit, head tossing, tilting the head, unwillingness to go, crookedness, hurrying, changing gait spontaneously, poor quality canter, resisting, and stumbling and toe dragging. Recognition of these features as potential indicators of musculoskeletal pain may enable earlier recognition of lameness and avoidance of punishment-based training. Further research is necessary to verify this new ethogram for assessment of pain in ridden horses.