|
|
Baumgartner, M., Boisson, T., Erhard, M. H., & Zeitler-Feicht, M. H. (2020). Common Feeding Practices Pose A Risk to the Welfare of Horses When Kept on Non-Edible Bedding. Animals, 10, 441.
Abstract: During the evolution of the horse, an extended period of feed intake, spread over the entire 24-h period, determined the horses� behaviour and physiology. Horses will not interrupt their feed intake for more than 4 h, if they have a choice. The aim of the present study was to investigate in what way restrictive feeding practices (non ad libitum) affect the horses� natural feed intake behaviour. We observed the feed intake behaviour of 104 horses on edible (n = 30) and non-edible bedding (n = 74) on ten different farms. We assessed the duration of the forced nocturnal feed intake interruption of horses housed on shavings when no additional roughage was available. Furthermore, we comparatively examined the feed intake behaviour of horses housed on edible versus non-edible bedding. The daily restrictive feeding of roughage (2 times a day: n = 8; 3 times a day: n = 2), as it is common in individual housing systems, resulted in a nocturnal feed intake interruption of more than 4 hours for the majority (74.32%, 55/74) of the horses on shavings (8:50 ± 1:25 h, median: 8:45 h, minimum: 6:45 h, maximum: 13:23 h). In comparison to horses on straw, horses on shavings paused their feed intake less frequently and at a later latency. Furthermore, they spent less time on consuming the evening meal than horses on straw. Our results of the comparison of the feed-intake behaviour of horses on edible and non-edible bedding show that the horses� ethological feeding needs are not satisfied on non-edible bedding. If the horses accelerate their feed intake (also defined as �rebound effect�), this might indicate that the horses� welfare is compromised. We conclude that in addition to the body condition score, the longest duration of feed intake interruption (usually in the night) is an important welfare indicator of horses that have limited access to roughage.
|
|
|
|
Beck, B. B. (1980). Animal tool behaviour: The use and manufacture of tools by animals. New York: Garland.
|
|
|
|
Beery, A. K., & Kaufer, D. (2015). Stress, social behavior, and resilience: Insights from rodents. Neurobiol. Stress, 1(Stress Resilience), 116–127.
Abstract: The neurobiology of stress and the neurobiology of social behavior are deeply intertwined. The social environment interacts with stress on almost every front: social interactions can be potent stressors; they can buffer the response to an external stressor; and social behavior often changes in response to stressful life experience. This review explores mechanistic and behavioral links between stress, anxiety, resilience, and social behavior in rodents, with particular attention to different social contexts. We consider variation between several different rodent species and make connections to research on humans and non-human primates.
|
|
|
|
Berger, K. M. (2006). Carnivore-Livestock conflicts: effects of subsidized predator control and economic correlates on the sheep industry. Conserv Biol, 20.
|
|
|
|
Bergmüller, R., & Taborsky, M. (2010). Animal personality due to social niche specialisation. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 25(9), 504–511.
Abstract: The existence of 'animal personality', i.e. consistent individual differences in behaviour across time and contexts, is an evolutionary puzzle that has recently generated considerable research interest. Although social factors are generally considered to be important, it is as yet unclear how they might select for personality. Drawing from ecological niche theory, we explore how social conflict and alternative social options can be key factors in the evolution and development of consistent individual differences in behaviour. We discuss how animal personality research might benefit from insights into the study of alternative tactics and illustrate how selection can favour behavioural diversification and consistency due to fitness benefits resulting from conflict reduction among social partners.
|
|
|
|
Bernauer, K., Kollross, H., Schuetz, A., Farmer, K., & Krueger, K. (2020). How do horses (Equus caballus) learn from observing human action? Anim. Cogn., 23, 1–9.
Abstract: A previous study demonstrated that horses can learn socially from observing humans, but could not draw any conclusions about the social learning mechanisms. Here we develop this by showing horses four different human action sequences as demonstrations of how to press a button to open a feed box. We tested 68 horses aged between 3 and 12 years. 63 horses passed the habituation phase and were assigned either to the group Hand Demo (N = 13) for which a kneeling person used a hand to press the button, Head Demo (N = 13) for which a kneeling person used the head, Mixed Demo (N = 12) for which a squatting person used both head and hand, Foot Demo (N = 12) in which a standing person used a foot, or No Demo (N = 13) in which horses did not receive a demonstration. 44 horses reached the learning criterion of opening the feeder twenty times consecutively, 40 of these were 75% of the Demo group horses and four horses were 31% of the No Demo group horses. Horses not reaching the learning criterion approached the human experimenters more often than those who did. Significantly more horses used their head to press the button no matter which demonstration they received. However, in the Foot Demo group four horses consistently preferred to use a hoof and two switched between hoof and head use. After the Mixed Demo the horses' actions were more diverse. The results indicate that only a few horses copy behaviours when learning socially from humans. A few may learn through observational conditioning, as some appeared to adapt to demonstrated actions in the course of reaching the learning criterion. Most horses learn socially through enhancement, using humans to learn where, and which aspect of a mechanism has to be manipulated, and by applying individual trial and error learning to reach their goal.
|
|
|
|
Birch, H. G. (1945). The relation of previous experience to insightful problem-solving. J Comp Psychol, 38, 367–383.
|
|
|
|
Blanco, J. C., & Yolanda, C. (2012). Surveying wolves without snow: a critical review of the methods used in Spain. Hystrix. Ital J Mammal, 23.
|
|
|
|
Blatz, S., Krüger, K., & Zanger, M. (2018). Der Hufmechanismus – was wir wirklich wissen! Eine historische und fachliche Auseinandersetzung mit der Biomechanik des Hufes. Wald: Xenophon Verlag e.K.
Abstract: Der Hufmechanismus – wir alle glauben ihn zu kennen und zu wissen wie er funktioniert. Doch wussten Sie, dass nach über 250 Jahren der Forschung immer noch keine eindeutige Aussage dazu getroffen werden kann, wie der Hufmechanismus genau entsteht, vonstattengeht und wie er bei der Hufbearbeitung berücksichtigt werden muss?
Die Ergebnisse von 50 Studien unterstützen die Elastizitätstheorie. Sie beschreibt einen individuellen Hufmechanismus, der von Pferd zu Pferd unterschiedlich und von mannigfaltigen Faktoren abhängig ist.
Der Hufmechanismus zeigt sich als ebenso anpassungsfähig wie die Hufform selbst. Daher sollte bei der Hufbearbeitung und beim Beschlag mit Maß und Weitblick die optimale und individuelle Lösung für jedes Pferd gefunden werden.
|
|
|
|
Boersma, P., & Weenink, D. (2009). Praat: doing phonetics by computer.
|
|
