Abstract: Group turnout provides important socializing opportunities for horses, particularly those that are primarily stalled. A high percentage of equine injuries occur during group turnout, which could partly be due to the physical constraints of fencing. To investigate appropriate paddock sizes for group turnouts, horses (n = 12) from a single herd were divided into groups of 4, stalled for 24 hours, and then turned out for 1 hour into one of three differently sized pens: 342, 263, and 184 m2 per horse. Groups rotated through pens across 3 days, receiving one treatment per day. Blood was sampled for cortisol concentrations at 08:00 hours each morning, and then at 15 and 60 minutes into the turn out sessions, and 60 minutes after return to individual stalls. Groups rotated through three turnout times: 09:00, 12:00, 14:00 hours. Counts of agonistic behaviors (chasing, contact biting, and kicking) and low-level threats (pinned ears, tail swishing, bite and kick threats) were recorded. When turned out in pens that provided 342 m2 per horse, horses exhibited reduced plasma cortisol concentrations by 15 minutes after turnout and at 1 hour after return to their stalls (P < .05). Horses in pens providing 184 m2 per horse exhibited greater agonistic (P < .001) and low-level threat (P < .01) behaviors than horses in larger pens. These data provide insight into appropriate pen sizes for horses from established herds. Providing at least 342 m2 per horse may reduce the chance of injury in horses accustomed to group turnout.

Abstract: Cerebral lateralization, i.e. hemispheric asymmetries in structure and function, relates in many species to a preference to attack from their left. Lateralization increases cognitive capacity, enabling the simultaneous processing of multiple sources of information. Therefore, lateralization may constitute a component of fighting ability (Resource Holding Potential), and/or influence the efficiency of information-gathering during a contest. We hypothesized that lateralization will affect contest outcome and duration, with an advantage for more strongly lateralized individuals. In 52 dyadic contests between weight-matched pigs (Sus scrofa; n = 104; 10 wk age), the direction of orientation towards the opponent was scan sampled every 10 s. Laterality indexes (LI) were calculated for the direction and strength of lateralization. Up to 12.5% of the individuals showed significant lateralization towards either the right or left but lateralization was absent at the population level. In line with our hypothesis, animals showing strong lateralization (irrespective of direction) had a shorter contest duration than animals showing weak lateralization. Winners did not differ from losers in their strength or direction of lateralization. Overall the results suggest that cerebral lateralization may aid in conflict resolution, but does not directly contribute to fighting ability, and will be of value in the study of animal contests.

Abstract: Background The increased use of meta-analysis in systematic reviews of healthcare interventions has highlighted several types of bias that can arise during the completion of a randomised controlled trial. Study publication bias has been recognised as a potential threat to the validity of meta-analysis and can make the readily available evidence unreliable for decision making. Until recently, outcome reporting bias has received less attention. Methodology/Principal Findings We review and summarise the evidence from a series of cohort studies that have assessed study publication bias and outcome reporting bias in randomised controlled trials. Sixteen studies were eligible of which only two followed the cohort all the way through from protocol approval to information regarding publication of outcomes. Eleven of the studies investigated study publication bias and five investigated outcome reporting bias. Three studies have found that statistically significant outcomes had a higher odds of being fully reported compared to non-significant outcomes (range of odds ratios: 2.2 to 4.7). In comparing trial publications to protocols, we found that 40-62% of studies had at least one primary outcome that was changed, introduced, or omitted. We decided not to undertake meta-analysis due to the differences between studies. Conclusions Recent work provides direct empirical evidence for the existence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias. There is strong evidence of an association between significant results and publication; studies that report positive or significant results are more likely to be published and outcomes that are statistically significant have higher odds of being fully reported. Publications have been found to be inconsistent with their protocols. Researchers need to be aware of the problems of both types of bias and efforts should be concentrated on improving the reporting of trials.

Abstract: The Y chromosome directly reflects male genealogies, but the extremely low Y chromosome sequence diversity in horses has prevented the reconstruction of stallion genealogies [1, 2]. Here, we resolve the first Y chromosome genealogy of modern horses by screening 1.46 Mb of the male-specific region of the Y chromosome (MSY) in 52 horses from 21 breeds. Based on highly accurate pedigree data, we estimated the de novo mutation rate of the horse MSY and showed that various modern horse Y chromosome lineages split much later than the domestication of the species. Apart from few private northern European haplotypes, all modern horse breeds clustered together in a roughly 700-year-old haplogroup that was transmitted to Europe by the import of Oriental stallions. The Oriental horse group consisted of two major subclades: the Original Arabian lineage and the Turkoman horse lineage. We show that the English Thoroughbred MSY was derived from the Turkoman lineage and that English Thoroughbred sires are largely responsible for the predominance of this haplotype in modern horses.

Abstract: Every animal species has particular environmental requirements that are essential for its welfare, and when these so-called “basic needs” are not fulfilled, the animals suffer. The basic needs of horses have been claimed to be social contact, social companionship, free movement and access to roughage. To assess whether horses suffer when one or more of the four proposed basic needs are restricted, we examined several studies (n = 38) that reported behavioural and physiological reactions to these restrictions. We assigned the studies according to the four types of responses investigated: (a) Stress, (b) Active, (c) Passive, and (d) Abnormal Behaviour. Furthermore, the number of studies indicating that horses reacted to the restrictions were compared with the number of studies reporting no reaction. The limited number of studies available on single management restrictions did not allow conclusions to be drawn on the effect of each restriction separately, especially in the case of social companionship. However, when combinations of social contact, free movement and access to roughage were restricted, many of the horses had developed responses consistent with suffering. Passive Responses, indicating acute suffering, and Abnormal Behaviour, indicating suffering currently or at some time in the past, were especially clearly demonstrated. This provides further evidence of the usefulness of assessing behavioural parameters in combination with physiological measurements when evaluating horse welfare. This meta-analysis of the literature confirms that it is justified to claim that social contact, free movement and access to roughage are basic needs in horses.