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.

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.

Abstract: Persistence of individual differences in animal behavior in reactions to various environmental challenges could reflect basic divergences in temperament, which might be used to predict details of adaptive response. Although studies have been carried out on fear and anxiety in various species, including laboratory, domestic and wild animals, no consistent definition of fearfulness as a basic trait of temperament has emerged. After a classification of the events that may produce a state of fear, this article describes the great variability in behavior and in physiological patterns generally associated with emotional reactivity. The difficulties of proposing fearfulness-the general capacity to react to a variety of potentially threatening situations-as a valid basic internal variable are then discussed. Although there are many studies showing covariation among the psychobiological responses to different environmental challenges, other studies find no such correlations and raise doubts about the interpretation of fearfulness as a basic personality trait. After a critical assessment of methodologies used in fear and anxiety studies, it is suggested that discrepancies among results are mainly due to the modulation of emotional responses in animals, which depend on numerous genetic and epigenetic factors. It is difficult to compare results obtained by different methods from animals reared under various conditions and with different genetic origins. The concept of fearfulness as an inner trait is best supported by two kinds of investigations. First, an experimental approach combining ethology and experimental psychology produces undeniable indicators of emotional reactivity. Second, genetic lines selected for psychobiological traits prove useful in establishing between behavioral and neuroendocrine aspects of emotional reactivity. It is suggested that fearfulness could be considered a basic feature of the temperament of each individual, one that predisposes it to respond similarly to a variety of potentially alarming challenges, but is nevertheless continually modulated during development by the interaction of genetic traits of reactivity with environmental factors, particularly in the juvenile period. Such interaction may explain much of the interindividual variability observed in adaptive responses.