Abstract: The notion that tool-use is unique to humans has long been refuted by the growing number of observations of animals using tools across various contexts. Yet, the mechanisms behind the emergence and sustenance of these tool-use repertoires are still heavily debated. We argue that the current animal behaviour literature is biased towards a social learning approach, in which animal, and in particular primate, tool-use repertoires are thought to require social learning mechanisms (copying variants of social learning are most often invoked). However, concrete evidence for a widespread dependency on social learning is still lacking. On the other hand, a growing body of observational and experimental data demonstrates that various animal species are capable of acquiring the forms of their tool-use behaviours via individual learning, with (non-copying) social learning regulating the frequencies of the behavioural forms within (and, indirectly, between) groups. As a first outline of the extent of the role of individual learning in animal tool-use, a literature review of reports of the spontaneous acquisition of animal tool-use behaviours was carried out across observational and experimental studies. The results of this review suggest that perhaps due to the pervasive focus on social learning in the literature, accounts of the individual learning of tool-use forms by naïve animals may have been largely overlooked, and their importance under-examined.

Abstract: We tested the hypothesis that social defensive responses to the vocalisation of a predator still exist in horses. The recordings of a grey wolf, an Arabian leopard and a golden jackal were played to 20 Konik polski and Arabian mares. Durations of grazing, standing still, standing alert and the number of steps in walk and trot/canter were measured. In one-minute scans, the distances of the focal horse from the reference horse (DIST-RH) and from the nearest loudspeaker (DIST-LS) were approximated. The vocalisation of a leopard aroused the Arabians more than the Koniks (less grazing, stand-still and walk, more stand-alert and trotting/cantering). Koniks showed more relaxed behaviours to the leopard vocalisation (more grazing, stand-still and walk), but high alertness to the wolf playback (stand-alert, trotting/cantering). Spatial formation of the herd of Koniks showed tight grouping (lower DIST-RH) and maintaining distance from the potential threat (DIST-LS) in response to the wolf howling, while the Arabians approached the loudspeakers in linear herd formation when the leopard growls were played. Adult horses responded to potential predation by changing spatial group formations. This ability to apply a social strategy may be one of the explanations for the least number of horses among all hunted farm animal species.

Abstract: An Gitterstäben, die in der Pferdehaltung an verschiedenen Stellen verwendet werden, können sich Pferde verletzen, wenn sie ihre Köpfe oder ihre Hufe hindurchstecken und nicht zurückziehen können. Um das Verletzungsrisiko zu reduzieren sind lichte Weiten und Materialstärken von Gitterstäben so zu wählen, dass Pferdeköpfe und -hufe entweder nicht zwischen den Freiräumen hindurchpassen oder aber gefahrlos wieder zurückgezogen werden können. Die bisherige Forschung liefert jedoch keine belastbaren Aussagen zu Stababständen (senkrecht und waagerecht), die für Pferde ungefährlich sind. Die in der Praxis verwendeten und in der Literatur empfohlenen Gitterstababstände beruhen auf Erfahrungswerten und technischen Materialeigenschaften. In der vorliegenden Untersuchung wurden Pferdeköpfe und -hufe von insgesamt 480 Pferden (233 Stuten, 204 Wallache und 43 Hengste) von 23 verschiedenen Rassen vermessen, um auf Grundlage der Anatomie der Pferde Aussagen über die Eignung von marktüblichen Stababständen in der Praxis treffen zu können. Es stellte sich heraus, dass bei senkrechten Gitterstäben eine lichte Weite von nicht mehr als 5 cm für alle Pferde ab einem Stockmaß von 110 cm und einem Alter von zwei Jahren als sicher bezeichnet werden kann. Bei waagerechten Gitterstäben erwies sich eine lichte Weite von genau 17 cm als sicher. Dies gilt für alle Pferde ab einem Alter von zwei Jahren oder ab einem Stockmaß von 148 cm.
Kritisch sind die lichten Weiten von Panels zu beurteilen. Hier zeigte sich, dass die handelsüblichen Abstände der Gitterstäbe für die meisten Pferde eine erhebliche Gefahr darstellen. Wenn die Pferde beispielsweise versuchen außerhalb der Panels zu fressen und dabei ihren Kopf durch die Gitterstäbe stecken, kann es leicht passieren, dass sie sich mit dem Kopf zwischen den Gitterstäben verklemmen.
[At bars, used in various places in horse husbandry, horses can hurt themselves when retracting their heads or hooves after pushing them through the interspaces. In order to reduce the risk of injury, the clear widths and material thicknesses of bars should be chosen so that horse heads and hooves either cannot pass between the spaces or can be retracted safely. However, research to date has not provided any reliable information on bar width (vertical and horizontal) that is safe for horses. Grid bar width used in practice and recommended in the literature is based on empirical values and technical material properties. In this study, heads and hooves of 480 horses (233 mares, 204 geldings and 43 stallions) of 23 breeds were measured for making statements about the suitability of standard bar width, when considering the anatomy of the horse. It turned out that for vertical bars, an interspace of no more than five centimetres can be considered to be safe for all horses of a height of 110 centimetres and an age of two years and more. With horizontal lattice bars, a clear width of exactly 17 centimetres proved to be safe. This applies to all horses of a height of 148 centimetres and an age of two years or more. The clear widths of panels must be considered critical for horse welfare. When horses, for example, try to eat outside the panels and put their head through the bars, they may get stuck.]

Abstract: A previous study demonstrated that horses can learn socially from observing humans, but could not draw any conclusions about the social learning mechanisms. Here we develop this by showing horses four different human action sequences as demonstrations of how to press a button to open a feed box. We tested 68 horses aged between 3 and 12 years. 63 horses passed the habituation phase and were assigned either to the group Hand Demo (N = 13) for which a kneeling person used a hand to press the button, Head Demo (N = 13) for which a kneeling person used the head, Mixed Demo (N = 12) for which a squatting person used both head and hand, Foot Demo (N = 12) in which a standing person used a foot, or No Demo (N = 13) in which horses did not receive a demonstration. 44 horses reached the learning criterion of opening the feeder twenty times consecutively, 40 of these were 75% of the Demo group horses and four horses were 31% of the No Demo group horses. Horses not reaching the learning criterion approached the human experimenters more often than those who did. Significantly more horses used their head to press the button no matter which demonstration they received. However, in the Foot Demo group four horses consistently preferred to use a hoof and two switched between hoof and head use. After the Mixed Demo the horses' actions were more diverse. The results indicate that only a few horses copy behaviours when learning socially from humans. A few may learn through observational conditioning, as some appeared to adapt to demonstrated actions in the course of reaching the learning criterion. Most horses learn socially through enhancement, using humans to learn where, and which aspect of a mechanism has to be manipulated, and by applying individual trial and error learning to reach their goal.