Abstract: Animal welfare, or well-being, is a social issue with ethical, scientific, political, and aesthetic properties. Answering questions about the welfare of animals requires scientific definition, assessment, solutions, and public acceptance. With respect to the actual well-being of the animal, most issues are centered on how the animal “feels” when managed within a specific level of confinement, during special agricultural practices (e.g., tail docking, beak trimming, etc.) and handling. Questions of this nature may require exploration of animal cognition, motivation, perception, and emotional states in addition to more commonly recognized indicators of well-being. Several general approaches have emerged for solving problems concerning animal well-being in intensive production systems: environmental, genetic, and therapeutic. Environmental approaches involve modifying existing systems to accommodate specific welfare concerns or development of alternative systems. Genetic approaches involve changing the behavioral and (or) physiological nature of the animal to reduce or eliminate behaviors that are undesirable within intensive system. Therapeutic approaches of a physical (tail docking, beak trimming) and physiological (drug and nutritional therapy) nature bring both concern and promise with regard to the reduction of confinement stress. Finally, the recent focus on commodity quality assurance programs may indirectly provide benefits for animal well-being. Although research in the area of animal well-being will provide important information for better animal management, handling, care, and the physical design of intensive production systems there is still some uncertainty regarding public acceptance. The aesthetics of modern intensive production systems may have as much to do with public acceptance as with science.

Abstract: To describe and then fulfill agricultural animals' needs, we must learn more about their fundamental psychological and behavioral processes. How does this animal feel? Is that animal suffering? Will we ever be able to know these things? Scientists specializing in animal cognition say that there are numerous problems but that they can be overcome. Recognition by scientists of the notion of animal awareness has been increasing in recent years, because of the work of Griffin and others. Feeling, thinking, remembering, and imagining are cognitive processes that are factors in the economic and humane production of agricultural animals. It has been observed that the animal welfare debate depends on two controversial questions: Do animals have subjective feelings? If they do, can we find indicators that reveal them? Here, indirect behavioral analysis approaches must be taken. Moreover, the linear additivity of several stressor effects on a variety of animal traits suggests that some single phenomenon is acting as a “clearinghouse” for many or all of the stresses acting on an animal at any given time, and this phenomenon might be psychological stress. Specific situations animals may encounter in agricultural production settings are discussed with respect to the animals' subjective feelings.

Abstract: The value of behavioral techniques in assessing animal welfare, and in particular assessing the psychological well being of animals, is reviewed. Using cats and horses as examples, 3 behavioral methods are presented: (1) comparison of behavior patterns and time budgets; (2) choice tests; and (3) operant conditioning. The behaviors of intact and declawed cats were compared in order to determine if declawing led to behavioral problems or to a change in personality. Apparently it did not. The behavior of free ranging horses was compared with that of stabled horses. Using two-choice preference tests, the preference of horses for visual contact with other horses and the preference for bedding were determined. Horses show no significant preference for locations from which they can make visual contact with other horses, but they do prefer bedding, especially when lying down. Horses will perform an operant response in order to obtain light in a darkened barn or heat in an outside shed. These same techniques can be used to answer a variety of questions about an animal's motivation for a particular attribute of its environment.

Abstract: The purpose of this study is to find convincing arguments, how horses should be ridden correctly, especially concerning the best head and neck position. Currently in the riding world, the opinions differ: The traditional way is to ride a horse with its nose in front of the vertical, while a new method claims that pulling the nose behind the vertical with an extreme flexion of the poll implies “gymnastic movements”. This article is focussed on the welfare and comfort of the horse in different head-neck positions, expressed by behaviours which document discomfort. As a first step, the behaviour of standing horses was observed while their heads and necks were put into seven postulated or frequently assumed positions. In the hyperflexed position the horses displayed most discomfort (with 49,7% of all reactions, like open mouths, head tossing, tail movements and other signs of resentment). The second strongest reactions of discomfort were shown in the highly raised position of the head (34,9%). The moderately rounded neck position as in traditional dressage lessons was not without signs of discomfort either, but less than the other two positions (11,2%). The high position and the extended position did not cause discomfort at all (0,17% and 0,23% respectively). In a second step, horses moving in all gaits under a rider were observed at competitions without the riders´ knowledge. The total number of observations was divided into two categories (each containing 30 horses) on the basis of the common rules of the FN: ridden with the horse’s nose in front of the vertical and ridden with the horse’s nose behind the vertical. The proportion of horses showing discomfort with the nose behind the vertical was clearly much higher (89,3%) compared to those ridden with the nose in front of the vertical (10,7%). Thus, the horses in the first category displayed signs of discomfort 8 times more frequent than those in the second group. In addition, scans carried out at tournaments showed that 92.8% of the horses were ridden with the nose behind the vertical. A clear result of this study is that the reality of riding differs widely from the rules. These results also show that riding in the hyperflexed position causes a great deal of discomfort for the horses and therefore should be abolished.
Die aktuellen Diskussionen in der Reiterwelt, welche Art und Weise des Reitens, besonders welche Kopf-Hals-Stellung zu erstreben ist, werfen die Frage auf, ob und wie die Pferde selbst ihr Befinden zum Ausdruck bringen. Über die Empfindungen der Pferde in verschiedenen Kopfhaltungen ist bisher sehr wenig bekannt. Deswegen wurde zunächst an stehenden Pferden das Ausdrucksverhalten beobachtet. Missfallensäußerungen häuften sich (mit 49,7% aller gezeigten Verhaltensauffälligkeiten wie Sperren, Rückwärtsgehen und Kopfschlagen) in der aufgerollten, hyperflektierten Stellung des Halses. An zweiter Stelle folgten Unmutsäußerungen in der absolut aufgerichteten Haltung (34,9%). Auch die beigezäumte Haltung wurde nicht ohne Unmutsbekundungen hingenommen, hier war deren Anzahl aber wesentlich geringer (11,2%). Die hohe Kopfstellung (0,17%) und die Dehnungshaltung (0,23%) bereiteten den Tieren kaum Unbehagen. Auch das Ausdrucksverhalten der Pferde unter dem Reiter wurde untersucht. Hierfür wurden, unter Berücksichtigung der schriftlich fixierten Regeln für das Turnierwesen der FN, je 30 Pferde in zwei Kategorien beobachtet: mit der Stirnlinie vor der Senkrechten und Pferde mit der Stirnlinie hinter der Senkrechten. Die Beobachtungen wurden unbemerkt von den Reitern auf den Abreiteplätzen von Turnieren durchgeführt. Die Anzahl an Verhaltensauffälligkeiten der Pferde mit der Stirnlinie hinter der Senkrechten war deutlich (89,3 %) erhöht im Gegensatz zu der anderen Gruppe (10,7 %). Die Pferde mit der Stirnlinie hinter der Senkrechten zeigten 8 Mal mehr Unmutsäußerungen als die mit der Stirnlinie vor der Senkrechten. Entgegen den Regeln der FN zeigten die durchgeführten Scans, dass unmittelbar vor den Prüfungen auf Turnieren 92,8% der Pferde mit der Stirnnasen-Linie hinter der Senkrechten geritten wurden. Ein Befund dieser Studie ist die Feststellung, dass die Praxis deutlich von den Regeln abweicht. Das Reiten mit der Stirnlinie hinter der Senkrechten ist nach diesen Befunden abzulehnen, da die Pferde deutliches Unwohlsein in dieser Haltung signalisieren.