Abstract: Two experiments were conducted to study the effect of varying the temporal distrbution of conditioning sessions on equine learning behavior. In the first experiment, 15 ponies were trained to clear a small hurdle in response to a buzzer in order to avoid a mild electric shock. Three treatments were used. One group received 10 learning trials daily, seven times a week; one group was trained in the same fashion two times a week and one group was trained once a week. The animals conditioned only once a week achieved a high level of performance in significantly fewer sessions than the ones conditioned seven times a week, although elapsed time from start of training to completion was two to three times greater for the former group. The twice-a-week group learned at an intermediate rate. In the second experiment, the ponies were rearranged into three new groups. They were taught to move backward a specific distance in response to a visual cue in order to avoid an electric shock. Again, one group was trained seven times a week, one group was trained two times and one group was trained once a week. As in the first experiment, the animals trained once a week achieved the learning criteria in significantly fewer sessions than those trained seven times a week, but, as in trial 1, elapsed time from start to finish was greater for them. The two times-a-week group learned at a rate in-between the rates of the other two groups.

Abstract: Limited information is available on the extent to which blankets are used on horses and the owners' reasoning behind clipping the horse's coat. Research on the effects of those practices on horse welfare is scarce but results indicate that blanketing and clipping may not be necessary from the horse's perspective and can interfere with the horse's thermoregulatory capacities. Therefore, this survey collected robust, quantitative data on the housing routines and management of horses with focus on blanketing and clipping practices as reported by members of the Swedish and Norwegian equestrian community. Horse owners were approached via an online survey, which was distributed to equestrian organizations and social media. Data from 4,122 Swedish and 2,075 Norwegian respondents were collected, of which 91 and 84% of respondents, respectively, reported using blankets on horses during turnout. Almost all respondents owning warmblood riding horses used blankets outdoors (97% in Sweden and 96% in Norway) whereas owners with Icelandic horses and coldblood riding horses used blankets significantly less (P < 0.05). Blankets were mainly used during rainy, cold, or windy weather conditions and in ambient temperatures of 10°C and below. The horse's coat was clipped by 67% of respondents in Sweden and 35% of Norwegian respondents whereby owners with warmblood horses and horses primarily used for dressage and competition reported clipping the coat most frequently. In contrast to scientific results indicating that recovery time after exercise increases with blankets and that clipped horses have a greater heat loss capacity, only around 50% of respondents agreed to these statements. This indicates that evidence-based information on all aspects of blanketing and clipping has not yet been widely distributed in practice. More research is encouraged, specifically looking at the effect of blankets on sweaty horses being turned out after intense physical exercise and the effect of blankets on social interactions such as mutual grooming. Future efforts should be tailored to disseminate knowledge more efficiently, which can ultimately stimulate thoughtful decision-making by horse owners concerning the use of blankets and clipping the horse's coat.

Abstract: Locoweed species (Astragalus and Oxytropis spp.) are a serious toxic plant problem for grazing livestock. Horses and sheep have been conditioned to avoid eating locoweed using the aversive agent LiCl. The objective of this study was to determine if previous locoweed intoxication affects food aversion learning in horses and sheep. Horses and sheep were divided into 3 treatment groups: control (not fed locoweed and not averted to a novel feed); locoweed-novel feed averted (fed locoweed and averted to a novel feed); and averted (not fed locoweed and averted to a novel feed). Animals in the locoweed-novel feed averted groups were fed locoweed during 2 periods of 21 and 14 d, respectively, with each feeding period followed by a 14-d recovery period. Animals were averted to a novel test feed at the end of the first locoweed-feeding period, and periodically evaluated for the strength and persistence of the aversion. During the first recovery period, locoweed-novel feed averted horses ate less (9.5% of amount offered) of the test feed than did control horses (99.8%) and did not generally differ from averted horses (0%). During recovery period 2, locoweed-novel feed averted horses (4.3%) differed (P = 0.001) in consumption (% of offered) of the test feed from controls (100%) and the averted group (0%). Locoweed-novel feed averted sheep differed (P = 0.001) from controls (14.4 vs. 99.5%, respectively, during recovery period 1), whereas locoweed-novel feed averted sheep did not differ (P > 0.50) from averted sheep (0.6%). During the second recovery period, control sheep (100%) differed (P < 0.05) from averted (0%) and locoweed-novel feed averted (12.2%) groups. Two intoxicated sheep (locoweed-novel feed averted) partially extinguished the aversion during the first recovery period, but an additional dose of LiCl restored the aversion. Two of 3 intoxicated horses had strong aversions that persisted without extinction; 1 horse in the locoweed-novel feed averted group had a weaker aversion. These findings suggest that horses and sheep previously intoxicated by locoweeds can form strong and persistent aversions to a novel feed, but in some animals, those aversions may not be as strong as in animals that were never intoxicated.

Abstract: A total of 208 sows and 288 gilts (PIC Line C29) were used to determine the influence of feeding frequency (2 versus 6 times/d, floor fed) on performance and welfare measurements on a commercial sow farm. Treatments consisted of feeding similar amounts of feed to each sow (2.5 kg) or gilt (2.05 kg) over 2 (0700 and 1530 h) or 6 times daily (0700, 0730, 0800, 1530, 1600, and 1630). There were 8 sows or 12 gilts in each pen. Gilts and sows were moved to pens 1 to 4 d after breeding. In sows, there were no differences (P > 0.10) in ADG, backfat change, or variation in BW. There was a trend (P < 0.08) for sows fed twice a daily to farrow more total pigs born, but number born alive or other reproductive performance traits were not different (P > 0.10) among treatments. Sows fed 6 times per d had increased vocalization during the morning (P < 0.07) and afternoon (P < 0.01) feeding periods compared with sows fed twice daily. Sows fed twice daily had more skin (P < 0.01) and vulva (P < 0.04) lesions as well as a small increase in feet and leg (P < 0.01) and hoof (P < 0.02) problems. In this commercial facility, the standard management protocol required moving gilts to a different gestation facility on d 42. On d 42, 2 pens of gilts with similar breeding dates and treatment were combined and moved to another facility with larger pens until farrowing. Gilts fed 6 times daily had a tendency for greater ADG (P < 0.07) from d 0 to 42, and a tendency for greater (P < 0.09) backfat on d 42. After movement to the larger groups from d 42 to farrowing, ADG was similar (P > 0.10) for gilts fed 2 or 6 times daily. Gilts fed twice daily had lower BW variation at d 42 (P < 0.04) and tended to at farrowing (P < 0.10). In gilts, there were no differences (P > 0.10) for reproductive performance, skin and vulva lesions, and feet, leg scores. In conclusion, there were few growth, farrowing, or aggression differences among gilts fed either 2 or 6 times daily. This suggests that either feeding method is suitable for group housed gilts. Among sows, feeding frequency resulted in few growth or farrowing performance differences. Feeding 6 times daily resulted in a small but significant reduction in skin and vulva lesions and structural problem scores while increasing vocalization. Increasing the feeding frequency from 2 to 6 times daily does not appear to have a negative or positive impact on performance or welfare of group housed gilts and sows.

Abstract: Two studies were conducted to determine the relationship of feeding behavior to the phenotypic expression of feed efficiency. In Exp. 1, a feedlot diet containing roughage was fed (traditional). In Exp. 2, a no-roughage diet was fed. Residual feed intake (RFI), a measure of feed efficiency, was calculated for both studies. In Exp. 1, 6 feed efficient (low RFI) steers and 6 feed inefficient steers (high RFI) were selected from a contemporary group of 80 steers, and feeding behaviors were analyzed. In Exp. 2, 9 feed efficient and 8 feed inefficient steers were selected from a contemporary group of 40 steers. There were no differences (P > 0.13) in initial or final BW or ADG between efficient and inefficient groups in either Exp. 1 or 2. In Exp. 1 DMI and average eating bouts daily differed (P < 0.001) with efficient steers consuming less feed and eating fewer times per day. In Exp. 2, efficient steers consumed less (P < 0.001) feed, and average eating bouts daily tended (P = 0.07) to be fewer in efficient animals. Limited differences were noted in feeding behavior between groups, with inefficient steers from both studies having a more variable eating pattern throughout the day. The average daily eating rate did not differ (P > 0.20) between groups in either experiment. The average number of days comprising a feeding pattern for both feed efficiency groups in Exp. 1 and 2 was found to be 2 to 3 d and multiples of 2 to 3 d. In Exp. 1 the feed intake pattern of efficient and inefficient steers changed once they reached a BW of approximately 391 kg and 381 kg, respectively. This occurred near d 47 for the efficient steers and near d 32 for inefficient steers. In Exp. 2 the feed intake pattern of both efficient and inefficient steers changed once they reached a BW of approximately 399 kg, which occurred on d 31 for the efficient steers and on d 33 for the inefficient steers. From the measured variables there were no differences in growth and limited differences noted in feeding behavior between feed efficient and feed inefficient groups. The results of the trials suggest increased variability of feed intake throughout the day for feed inefficient animals.