Abstract: It is advantageous to identify individuals who are likely to behave fairly and those who are not. This ability to judge others’ fairness seems important for social species to interact or cooperate with their partners. Domestic horses (Equus caballus) have lived with humans for over five thousand years, hence they might have developed sensitivity to human personality. In the present study, we investigated whether horses would discriminate between a person who behaved fairly and a person who behaved unfairly. Specifically, we asked whether horses show a preference for the former. We tested 12 horses (11 thoroughbred and 1 Anglo-Arabian horses) at the horseback-riding club of Kyoto University. They were divided into 6 pairs which consisted of a participant and a partner. A participant was picketed between two polls next to a partner at the hoof washing place. Each horse put his/her mouth in an actor’s hand when the actor (an unfamiliar person) stood in front of them, and then received food from the actor. A fair actor always behaved fairly and gave a small quantity of hay (low-value food) to both of them in return for the task. An unfair actor always behaved unfairly, giving a small quantity of hay to the participant in return for the task, but always giving a piece of carrot (high-value food) to the partner in return for the task. Both actors always stood in front of the partner first, so the partner always did the task and received food from the actor before the participant. Finally, the participant was offered a piece of carrot by the two actors. The participant indicated which offer was accepted by stretching toward the chosen actor. The latter then moved the hand forward to allow the participant to take the food while the other actor’s hand withdrew. The orders (1st or 2nd) and the positions (left or right) of the two actors varied pseudo-randomly across trials. The color of the clothes of the two actors (white or black) was counterbalanced between sessions. We conducted 8 sessions, consisting of 8 experimental trials, across which the actors maintained their respective roles (fair or unfair) of the fair and unfair person. Furthermore, the two actors switched roles across sessions so that they played both roles the same number of times. One session was run per day. If horses can discriminate between fair and unfair people and show a preference for the former, they should choose the former significantly more often than the latter when both actors offered food. The participants showed no overall preference for accepting food from either actor. However, three of six participants showed a side preference. The result of the present study suggests that horses are insensitive to humans’ fairness. Horses may not have expectations about fair treatment.

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: Eight pairs of pony mares were observed. Members of a pair were housed in adjacent stalls and fed hay ad libitum. The behavior of both ponies was recorded simultaneously in the morning (1000 to 1200 h) and afternoon (1400 to 1600 h) for a total of 117 h. The time budget was: 70.1 {+/-} 8.6% eating; 17.8 {+/-} 7.4% standing (including stand rest, stand alert and stand nonajert); 5.2 {+/-} 7.0% pushing hay; 2.9 {+/-} 1.2% walking; 1.9 {+/-} 2.9% drinking; 1.3 {+/-} 1.1% self-grooming; .2 {+/-} .3% defecating; .06 {+/-} .1% chewing nonfood items; .06 {+/-} .03% urination; .06 {+/-} .1% licking salt; .07 {+/-} .1% pawing hay; .6 {+/-} .7% lying and .07 {+/-} .08% stretching the neck over the stall wall dividing the ponies. While eating, the ponies lifted their heads 25.4 {+/-} 11.0 times/h. In less than one-half of the occasions when urination or defecation was observed, the ponies walked away from the spot where they had been eating to eliminate. During one-half of the observations, visual contact between the ponies was prevented by a solid partition between the stalls. The ponies spent significantly more time standing nonalert when the partition prevented visual contact (12 {+/-} 7%) than when visual contact could take place (6 {+/-} 3%, P<.05). When fresh hay was supplied in the mornings, the ponies spent similar amounts of time eating whether visual contact was allowed or not, but in the afternoon significantly more time was spent feeding when visual contact was allowed (73 {+/-} 4%) than when it was not (60 {+/-} 7%). Less time was spent eating, in the absence of visual contact, despite the presence of auditory and olfactory contact. Apparently social facilitation is important in maintaining feeding behavior in ponies. N1 -

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: It has been proposed that levels of fluctuating asymmetry (FA) may be used in establishing and maintaining dominance hierarchies, as asymmetry reflects aspects of individual quality. However, previous manipulations of FA have failed to reveal that the level or outcome of agonistic intra-sexual interactions are affected by levels of FA. In female European starlings (Sturnus vulgaris), correlational data suggest that FA of the speckled chest plumage may be related to dominance status. These data are confounded, however, by total number of spots on the chest and the proportion of the chest that is white, both of which positively covary with chest asymmetry. Thus, we deconfounded the effects of these plumage traits on dominance by experimentally manipulating the number of spots and spot number asymmetry in a factorial design. The results indicated that dominance is influenced by the number of spots on the chest, but not by spot asymmetry. Birds with spottier chests were dominant over birds with experimentally decreased spot number. We suggest that female starlings' chests are exposed to extensive abrasion throughout the breeding season and so are susceptible to damage asymmetries that may mask the `true' fluctuating asymmetry of the trait. This may devalue the use of chest asymmetry as a quality indicator. Spottier chests may be costly to maintain, in part because of increased susceptibility to abrasion, and so may be a better indicator of quality than asymmetry.