|
de Waal, F. B. M. (1992). Coalitions as part of reciprocal relations in the Arnhem chimpanzee colony. In A. H. Harcourt, & F. B. M. de Waal (Eds.), Coalitions and Alliances in Humans and Other Animals (pp. 233–257). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
|
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.
|
|
Ehardt, C. L., & Bernstein, I. S. (1992). Conflict intervention behaviour by adult male macaques: structural and functional aspects. In A. H. Harcourt, & F. B. M. de Waal (Eds.), Coalitions and Alliances in Humans and Other Animals (pp. 83–111). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
|
|
Russell, L. A. (2003). Decoding Equine Emotions. Society and Animals, 11(3), 265–266.
|
|
Laland, K. N., Richerson, P. J., & Boyd, R. (1996). Developing a theory of animal social learning. In C. M. Heyes, & B. G. J. Galef (Eds.), Social learning in animals: the roots of culture. (pp. 129–154). San Diego, California: Academic Press.
|
Hau, J., Andersson, E., & Carlsson, H. - E. (2001). Development and validation of a sensitive ELISA for quantification of secretory IgA in rat saliva and faeces. Laboratory Animals, 35(4), 301–306.
Abstract: Non-invasive measures of immunological markers are an attractive means of stress assessment in laboratory animals. Salivary IgA has been used successfully as a stress marker in the human, and several reports indicate the potential of secretory IgA as a non-invasive measure of stress in animals. The present paper describes the development of an ELISA using commercially available components for the quantification of rat IgA and validation of this assay for the quantification of rat secretory IgA in saliva and faeces. The concentration of IgA in rat saliva varied significantly between duplicate samples obtained from individual rats, and the viscosity and small total volume of rat saliva gave unsatisfactory results for IgA. Faecal IgA was present in high concentrations, and duplicate samples varied by only 2-3%. However, faecal IgA seemed less stable than IgA in other biological compartments, and this finding must be taken into consideration when using quantitative measurements of IgA as a marker of mucous humoral immune status.
|
|
Tomasello, M. (1996). Do apes ape? In C. M. Heyes, & B. G. Galef (Eds.), Social learning in animals: the roots of culture (pp. 319–346). London: Academic Press.
|
|
Tomasello, M., & Call, J. (2006). Do chimpanzees know what others see ? or only what they are looking at? In M. Nudds, & S. Hurley (Eds.), Rational Animals? (pp. 371–384). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
|
Schwarz, S., Marr, I., Farmer, K., Graf, K., Stefanski, V., & Krueger, K. (2022). Does Carrying a Rider Change Motor and Sensory Laterality in Horses? Animals, 12(8), 992.
Abstract: Laterality in horses has been studied in recent decades. Although most horses are kept for riding purposes, there has been almost no research on how laterality may be affected by carrying a rider. In this study, 23 horses were tested for lateral preferences, both with and without a rider, in three different experiments. The rider gave minimal aids and rode on a long rein to allow the horse free choice. Firstly, motor laterality was assessed by observing forelimb preference when stepping over a pole. Secondly, sensory laterality was assessed by observing perceptual side preferences when the horse was confronted with (a) an unfamiliar person or (b) a novel object. After applying a generalised linear model, this preliminary study found that a rider increased the strength of motor laterality (p = 0.01) but did not affect sensory laterality (p = 0.8). This suggests that carrying a rider who is as passive as possible does not have an adverse effect on a horse�s stress levels and mental state.
|
|
Connor, R. C., Smokler, R. A., & Richards, A. F. (1992). Dolphin alliances and coalitions. In A. H. Harcourt, & F. B. M. de Waal (Eds.), Coalitions and Alliances in Humans and Other Animals (pp. 415–443). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
|
