Abstract: This presentation will include commentary on work presented at this meeting as representative of the rapidly growing body of equine behavior science evidence relevant to human-horse interaction and the welfare of domestic, feral, and wild horses.
A substantial literature has accumulated detailing the behavior patterns of wild and feral equid populations, and to some extent the behavior of horses in various domestic environments. Professor Klingel“s and Professor Houpt”s work, begun nearly 40 years ago, continues to inspire colleagues around the world to qualitatively and quantitatively describe behavior of equids in a variety of environments. Several examples of the importance of this type of work to human-horse interaction and horse welfare are evident in throughout the meeting. It forms the basis for assessing the disturbance of behavior in wildlife management projects such as fertility manipulations (Hopkins; Ransom & Cade) or species reintroduction (Kaczensky et al). Study of the apparent variability in observations among the populations will lead to a better understanding of environmental and other factors, which will have fruitful application to welfare of horses both in domestic and natural environments. Unfortunately, this work always brings to mind what I perceive as a nagging threat to horse welfare and quality of human-horse interaction is misinformation concerning natural horse behavior. Natural horse behavior seems to be of great general interest, but unfortunately inaccuracies and misinterpretations are pervasive in popular “horse culture” and continue to be a conspicuous influence on management and training of domestic horses. Unfortunately, this misinformation often makes its way and influences equine education, both lay and equine science/veterinary education. Comparative observational study of behavior of horses in all settings by trained behaviorists, along with research designed to address purported implications for management of domestic horses, along with initiatives to transfer knowledge to educators at all levels should be encouraged.

Included in this meeting is considerable work addressing questions of domestic management practices such as forced weaning, transportation, stabling, and arbitrary grouping and regrouping of horses. This adds to a growing body of applied physiology and behavior research that has established trained behaviorists as a critical resource on teams making decisions on humane management.
Also well represented in work presented at this meeting is the exploration of cognition, perception, and temperament in horses. It is personally pleasing to see examples of direct investigation of the ability of the horse to respond to subtle human posture and gesture, which for many of us has represented just annoying possible confounders of earlier cognition studies. Behaviorists trained in perception and learning will no doubt contribute enormously to this exciting area of investigation.

Abstract: We tested untrained horses (foals and breeding mares) in 3 different breeding centres. Horses were kept in a pasture during daytime in bigger groups (median 12, min: 6, max 35 / pasture) according to age, gender and breed (hungarian halfbred, hucul, arabian and thoroughbred). To measure their reactions to an unfamiliar person we conducted an active and a passive human test. In the active human test the test person (TP) approached a focal animal in the group from a predetermined direction: from their front, from their side (left or right) or from the rear. As TP reached the horse (of app. 0.5 m distance), she tried to pet the animal’s head. The TP always chose and approached a standing or a grazing horse (ie. those that were not walking, galloping, playing etc.). The horse’s reaction to the approaching human was scored 1-5. Score 1: the horse moved away and the TP could not even approach it within 0.5 m; Score 2: the horse made max. 2 steps away, but could be reached and petted; Score 3 and Score 4: the horse stood in its place but showed different signs of discomfort (head turn – Score 3; backing ears, tail slash – Score 4); Score 5: the horse stood and did not show any sign of discomfort or actively approached the TP. There was no significant difference in the horses’ reaction between approaching from their left or right side. Approaching from their front or from their side (left or right) did not differ significantly either. However, the odds of walking away from the TP (score 1 or 2) was 2.7 (Fisher-test, p=0.039) and 3.3 (p=0.012) times higher when TP approached from the rear compared to approaching from their front or from their side (left or right), respectively. In the passive human test the TP stood immobile for 4 minutes in 5 or 10 m far from the horses during their active (grazing) or inactive (standing idle during noon) period. Horses approached TP significantly sooner (general linear model, p=0.017) when she stood 5m distance (38 ±63 s) compared to 10m (97 ±52 s). The arrival of a second horse after the first horse approached the TP showed significant high correlation with the latency of the first horse arrival (Pearson correlation, r=0.96, p<0.001). The horses were less keen (p=0.008) to approach the human when they were tested in an inactive period (177 ±110 s) compare to active period (38 ±63 s).

Abstract: An important question in the study of animal communication is whether non-human animals are able to produce communicative gestures, i.e. nonvocal bodily actions directed to a recipient, physically ineffective but with a meaning shared in the social group [1]. Passive gestures are instrumental, tuned to the mere presence/absence of others, whereas active informers recognize receivers as communicative agents and activate shared-attention mechanisms for identifying their attentional state (SAM [2]; e.g. Schwab and Huber [3]). Six operational criteria must be evaluated to classify a signal as referential and intentional [4]: (1) alternative gazes between the partner and the target; (2) apparent attention-getting behaviours are deployed; (3) an audience is required to exhibit the behaviour; (4) the attentional status of an observer influences the propensity to exhibit behaviours; (5) communication is persistent and (6) there is elaboration of communicative behaviour when apparent attempts to manipulate the partner fail. Dogs [5] and non-human primates (reviewed in Liebal and Call [6]) can tune a human receiver’s attention to the object of interest by combining directional and attention-getting signals, such as turning the head or body, gazing to the receiver, and/or establishing eye contact. Research on other species is scarce.
Horses rely on humans to survive in domestic settings and may have evolved skills for communicating flexibly with them [7]. Horses understand human attentional cues (such as body and head orientation, eyes opened/closed) [8], permanent pointing [9] and, to some extent, gazing [10]. Here we tested the ability of 14 outdoor, herd-living domestic horses to communicate referentially with a human partner about the location of a desired target, a bucket of food out of reach. After the baiting of two buckets placed in opposite, unreachable locations were shown by the experimenter, the subject would walk to one of the two buckets. Because approaching a bucket would reveal that the food is out of reach, we expected the horse to look back to the experimenter, then to the bucket, and alternate this gazing several times to indicate its intention. To test whether our prediction is correct and alternate gazing is indeed the result of the horse's referential communication, we video-recorded the behaviour of the subjects in the test (FORWARD) and three control conditions: (1) FORWARD: experimenter oriented to the center of the arena, (2) BACK: experimenter backward oriented in respect to the arena, (3) ALONE: experimenter absent, (4) MANY: as FORWARD plus a familiar human oriented to the subject behind the bucket (Figure 1). We used a conservative criterion of back gazing by considering only turning the head back more than 90 degrees. The results confirmed our prediction. The horses alternated gazes between the partner and the buck significantly more often in the FORWARD than in all the other conditions (Table 1), thus satisfying operational criteria #1, #3 and #4. They also alternated head nods with gazes to the partner significantly more often during the FORWARD condition. We thus considered head nods not an instrumental signal of arousal, but an attention-getting behaviour with communicative function. Subjects used both head nods and neck stretched toward the buck more often in the FORWARD than in the BACK and the ALONE conditions, thus satisfying criteria #2, #3 and #4. In condition MANY, the frequency of head nods did not differ from condition FORWARD, probably because nods were directed to the additional partner behind the buck. This also satisfies criteria #4. The horses gazed to the partner most often in the FORWARD than in the BACK and the MANY conditions, but not in the ALONE. In this condition, subjects could observe the partner walking further from the test arena. To test for the different functions of gazes in presence and in absence of the partner, we compared their average duration between the two conditions: the significantly longer duration of gazes when the subject was alone suggests the instrumental monitoring function of gazes in this experimental condition.
Altogether, the findings suggest that domestic horses possess the ability to use referential communication in an interspecific context, but additional analyses are needed to test for operational criteria #5 and #6. Flexible and voluntary use of communicative signals reveal sophisticated cognitive processes involved in the strategic emission of these signals, and the finding of referential communication skills in an ungulate species forces us to reconsider the evolutionary path of intelligence. Furthermore, ungulates are used intensively by humans (transportation, meat, agriculture, leisure activities), and their welfare is often compromised. Determining whether ungulates can communicate their needs and preferences is paramount to a proper ethical management.

Abstract: A comparison of day-time time budgets of the konik polski horses kept in two different housing systems: free-roaming and in a limited area, was the aim of the study. The observations were carried out in the Biebrza National Park from January to June 2006 on a total of 12 horses (7 females and 5 males) aged from 2 to 5 years. The horses were kept for one year in a free-roaming system on a area of 200 ha where they formed two family bands. Later, during the winter the horses were grouped together in 1 ha enclosure with free access to water, hay given 3 times per day and oats given irregularly mainly in the winter. In the spring horses were let out again into the free-roaming system. A comparison was made of the horses“ behavior characterizing their daily activity in both housing systems. Behavioral data were collected during 122 h of direct observations in 1 hour focal samples in three periods of the day: morning (from dawn to 11:00 am), afternoon (from 11:00 am to 4:00 pm) and in the evening (from 4:00 pm until dusk). The proportion of time spent on feeding and resting behavior and locomotion activity in the total time of the observations, depending on the time of day and sex of the horses, was determined. For the evaluation of the frequency of drinking, comfort, eliminative, sexual and exploratory behavior the number of appeared cases in all horses was added up and divided by the number of observation hours. In spite of significant differences in the intensity of feeding and in the time spent on recumbency found in both housing systems depending on the time of day and sex of the horses, it seems that konik polski horses kept in different housing systems have a tendency to maintain the stable day-time time budgets, which was demonstrated by the similar time of their daily activity spent on feeding (75.9 % of total time in limited area and 71,2 % free-roaming) and resting upright (respectively 16.9 % and 15.8%) as well as cases of urination (0.18 cases/1 hour of observation in limited area and 0.17 in free-roaming in total), self- grooming (respectively 0.40 and 0.56) and mutual-grooming (0.17 and 0.12). But other signs of comfort behavior were observed nearly twice as often in the horses in the limited area (0,42) than in the free roaming system (0,22). The patterns of exploratory behavior were observed decisively more often in the case of horses in limited area (0,5 cases/1 hour of observation) than in the free-roaming system (0,07). The different housing system affected the konik polski horses” time-budget, with decreased time spent in limited area as compared to free-roaming horses in recumbent rest (respectively 2.5 % and 7,0 % of total time), locomotion activity in walk (4.9 % and 8,2 %) and trot (0.006 % and 2,3 %). Due to delivering forage to the paddock the locomotion of the horses related with searching, choosing and eating also decreased. Key words: housing systems, day-time time budgets, konik polski horses