Abstract: Although horses are social animals they are often housed individually with limited social contact to other horses and this may compromise their welfare. The present study included eight young female horses and investigated the strength of motivation for access to full social contact, head contact and muzzle contact, respectively, to a familiar companion horse. Horses were housed individually next to their companion horse and separations between pens prevented physical contact. During daily test sessions horses were brought to a test area where they could access an arena allowing social contact. Arena access during 3 min was given after completion of a predetermined number of responses on a panel. Fixed ratios (FR) of 8, 16, 24, 32 and 40 responses per arena access were applied in a random order, one per daily test session, within each test week (Monday to Friday), and the number of rewards per daily test session was recorded. All horses could access all three types of social contact in a cross-over design, and an empty arena was used as control. Motivational strength was assessed using elasticity of demand functions, which were estimated based on the number of rewards earned and FR. Elasticities of demand for the three types of social contact were low (-0.20), and not significantly different, although increasing FR still resulted in a decrease in rewards obtained for all three types of social contact (P < 0.001). Across FR-levels horses earned more rewards for social contact than for an empty arena, as shown by much higher intercept values (2.51 vs. 0.99; P < 0.001). However, the elasticity of demand for infrequent access to an empty arena (-0.08) was lower than for social contact (P < 0.01) and not significantly different from zero (P = 0.07). Horses performed more social behaviour the lesser the restriction on social contact (full > head > muzzle). However, the finding that horses showed a similar and high motivation for all three types of social contact suggests that they are valued equally highly in a situation where the alternative is no social contact.

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: In the large majority of cases and circumstances, horses benefit from their association with man. However, abuse of horses can occur, due to neglect or through the pressures of competition. The welfare of all animals, including competition horses, has become increasingly topical over the past ten years. Equestrian sport is coming under closer public scrutiny due to reports of apparent abuse. The bodies responsible for regulating these sports strenuously endeavour to protect the welfare of horses which compete under their rules and regulations. The Federation Equestre Internationale (FEI: International Equestrian Federation) is the sole authority for all international events in dressage, show-jumping, three-day event, driving, endurance riding and vaulting. The FEI rules illustrate the ways in which the welfare of competing horses is safeguarded.

Abstract: Many behaviours in domestic animals, such as the 'stable vices' of horses, are treated because they are considered undesirable for economic or cultural reasons, and not because the activity affects the horse's quality of life. The impact of a behaviour on the human reporter is not a function of its impact on the animal performer, and an understanding of the causes and effects of the particular activity is necessary to assess the costs and benefits of treatment. Where the behaviour is a sign of poor welfare, such as an inadequate environment, treatment can best be achieved by removing these underlying causal factors. Pharmacological or physical prevention of a behaviour can be justified only if the behaviour causes harm to the performer or to others. In these cases, prevention of the behaviour without addressing its causes is no cure and may result in its perseverance in a modified form or the disruption of the animal's ability to adapt to its environment. Where the behavioural 'problem' causes no harm and is not related to poor housing, then the education of the reporter, rather than treatment of the performer, may be the best solution.