McGreevy, P., Berger, J., De Brauwere, N., Doherty, O., Harrison, A., Fiedler, J., et al. (2018). Using the Five Domains Model to Assess the Adverse Impacts of Husbandry, Veterinary, and Equitation Interventions on Horse Welfare. Animals, 8(3), 41.
Abstract: The aim of this study was to conduct a series of paper-based exercises in order to assess the negative (adverse) welfare impacts, if any, of common interventions on domestic horses across a broad range of different contexts of equine care and training. An international panel (with professional expertise in psychology, equitation science, veterinary science, education, welfare, equestrian coaching, advocacy, and community engagement; n = 16) met over a four-day period to define and assess these interventions, using an adaptation of the domain-based assessment model. The interventions were considered within 14 contexts: C1 Weaning; C2 Diet; C3 Housing; C4 Foundation training; C5 Ill-health and veterinary interventions (chiefly medical); C6 Ill-health and veterinary interventions (chiefly surgical); C7 Elective procedures; C8 Care procedures; C9 Restraint for management procedures; C10 Road transport; C11 Activity—competition; C12 Activity—work; C13 Activity—breeding females; and C14 Activity—breeding males. Scores on a 1–10 scale for Domain 5 (the mental domain) gathered during the workshop were compared with overall impact scores on a 1–10 scale assigned by the same panellists individually before the workshop. The most severe (median and interquartile range, IQR) impacts within each context were identified during the workshop as: C1 abrupt, individual weaning (10 IQR 1); C2 feeding 100% low-energy concentrate (8 IQR 2.5); C3 indoor tie stalls with no social contact (9 IQR 1.5); C4 both (i) dropping horse with ropes (9 IQR 0.5) and forced flexion (9 IQR 0.5); C5 long-term curative medical treatments (8 IQR 3); C6 major deep intracavity surgery (8.5 IQR 1); C7 castration without veterinary supervision (10 IQR 1); C8 both (i) tongue ties (8 IQR 2.5) and (ii) restrictive nosebands (8 IQR 2.5); C9 ear twitch (8 IQR 1); C10 both (i) individual transport (7.00 IQR 1.5) and group transport with unfamiliar companions (7 IQR 1.5); C11 both (i) jumps racing (8 IQR 2.5) and Western performance (8 IQR 1.5); C12 carriage and haulage work (6 IQR 1.5); C13 wet nurse during transition between foals (7.5 IQR 3.75); and C14 teaser horse (7 IQR 8). Associations between pre-workshop and workshop scores were high, but some rankings changed after workshop participation, particularly relating to breeding practices. Domain 1 had the weakest association with Domain 5. The current article discusses the use of the domain-based model in equine welfare assessment, and offers a series of assumptions within each context that future users of the same approach may make when assessing animal welfare under the categories reported here. It also discusses some limitations in the framework that was used to apply the model.
|
|
Graf, P., Schneider, T., KönigvonBorstel, U., & Gauly M. (2013). Kosten-Nutzen-Analyse einer objektivierten Temperamentbeurteilung bei Pferden [Economic evaluation of an objective temperament assessment in horses]. Züchtungskunde, 85(2), 129–142.
Abstract: Das Ziel der vorliegenden Studie war die Ermittlung der Kosten eines Verhaltenstests zur
objektiven Temperamentbeurteilung. Sie wurde an 1028 Pferden auf 55 Zuchtveranstaltungen
und Privatbetrieben ermittelt.
Weiterhin wurde eine Befragung zur allgemeinen Akzeptanz einer solchen Beurteilung
bei Reitpferden durchgeführt. Zusätzlich wurde mit Hilfe einer Online-Umfrage die
Meinung zu den Kosten und dem Aufwand einer solchen Beurteilung ermittelt. Die
Kosten der Einführung einer objektiven Temperamentbeurteilung entsprechen nach Einbeziehung
aller Faktoren ca. 18 Euro je Pferd. Den Kosten steht die Zahlungsbereitschaft
für eine verbesserte, da objektivierte Temperamentbeurteilung gegenüber. Insgesamt
56,7% der Befragten wären bereit, mehr als 11 Euro für eine objektive Interieurbeurteilung
auf Leistungsprüfungen im Feld zu investieren. Im Rahmen von Stationsprüfungen
wären sie sogar bereit mehr als 30 Euro aufzuwenden. Die Wertsteigerung eines im
Rahmen des Verfahrens positiv bewerteten Pferdes um 5%, die von den Teilnehmern der
Umfrage durchschnittlich angenommen wird, würde zusätzlich den Gewinn beim Pferdeverkauf
steigern. Die Ergebnisse zeigen, dass die Kosten einer objektiven Temperamentbeurteilung
durch eine erhöhte Zahlungsbereitschaft der Käufer scheinbar kompensiert
werden können, so dass die Einführung eines Temperamenttests zur objektiven Interieurbeurteilung
in Form der vorgestellten Untersuchungen grundsätzlich finanzierbar ist.
[The aim of the present study was to assess costs as well as riders’ acceptance of an
objective temperament evaluation in riding horses. Costs were determined based on a
novel object test conducted in 1028 horses tested on 65 occasions during performance
tests or in private stables. In addition, an online survey was used to identify riders’
opinion about the costs and benefits of such an assessment. Based on the conditions
assumed in the present study the costs for temperament testing have amount 18 Euro per
horse. More than 50% of the respondents were willing to pay more than 11 Euro for an
objective temperament assessment in their horses during performance tests in field.
Within performance tests on station they would spend more than 30 Euro for an objective temperament assessment. Participants further assumed a rise in value of favourably
assessed horses by 5%, leading to increased profits when selling the horse. In conclusion,
riders appear to be willing to cover the additional costs accrued from the temperament
test. Therefore, the introduction of an objective temperament assessment is likely to pay
off.]
|
|
Young, T., Creighton, E., Smith, T., & Hosie, C. (2012). A novel scale of behavioural indicators of stress for use with domestic horses. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 140(1–2), 33–43.
Abstract: Behaviour scores (BS) offer non-invasive, objective and easy to use ways of assessing welfare in animals. Their development has, however, largely focused on behavioural reactions to stressful events (often induced), and little use of physiological measures has been made to underpin and validate the behavioural measures. This study aimed to develop a physiologically validated scale of behavioural indicators of stress for the purpose of welfare assessment in stabled domestic horses. To achieve this, behavioural and physiological data were collected from 32 horses that underwent routine husbandry procedures. Principal component analysis (PCA) of the behavioural and physiological data revealed three meaningful components that were used as the basis of the scale. Analysis of video clips of the horses’ responses to the husbandry procedures was undertaken by a panel of equestrian industry professionals using a free choice profiling (FCP) methodology. These results were added to the scale along with key definitions from relevant literature. Salivary cortisol levels were significantly correlated with the BS confirming the scale was meaningful and reflected physiological stress. The scale offers an easy to use ‘tool’ for rapid, reliable non-invasive welfare assessment in horses, and reduces the need for potentially invasive physiological measures.
|
|
Gosling, S. D. (1998). Personality dimensions in spotted hyenas (Crocuta crocuta). J Comp Psychol, 112(2), 107–118.
Abstract: Personality ratings of 34 spotted hyenas (Crocuta crocuta) were made by 4 observers who knew the animals well. Analyses suggest that (a) hyena personality traits were rated with generally high reliability; (b) 5 broad dimensions (Assertiveness, Excitability, Human-Directed Agreeableness, Sociability, and Curiosity) captured about 75% of the total variance; (c) this dimensional structure could not be explained in terms of dominance status, sex, age, or appearance; and (d) as expected, female hyenas were more assertive than male hyenas. Comparisons with previous research provide evidence for the cross-species generality of Excitability, Sociability, and especially Assertiveness. Discussion focuses on methodological issues in research on animal personality and on the potential contributions this research can make for understanding the biological and environmental bases of personality.
|
|
Drummond, H. (2006). Dominance in vertebrate broods and litters. Quarterly Review of Biology, 81(1), 3–32.
Abstract: Drawing on the concepts and theory of dominance in adult vertebrates, this article categorizes the relationships of dominance between infant siblings, identifies the behavioral mechanisms that give rise to those relationships, and proposes a model to explain their evolution. Dominance relationships in avian broods can be classified according to the agonistic roles of dominants and subordinates as “aggression-submission,” “aggression-resistance, ” “aggression-aggression,” “aggression-avoidance,” “rotating dominance,” and “flock dominance.” These relationships differ mainly in the submissiveness/pugnacity of subordinates, which is pivotal, and in the specificity/generality of the learning processes that underlie them. As in the dominance hierarchies of adult vertebrates, agonistic roles are engendered and maintained by several mechanisms, including differential fighting ability, assessment, trained winning and losing (especially in altricial species), learned individual relationships (especially in precocial species), site-specific learning, and probably group-level effects. An evolutionary framework in which the species-typical dominance relationship is determined by feeding mode, confinement, cost of subordination, and capacity for individual recognition, can be extended to mammalian litters and account for the aggression-submission and aggression-resistance observed in distinct populations of spotted hyenas and the “site-specific dominance” (teat ownership) of some pigs, felids, and hyraxes. Little is known about agonism in the litters of other mammals or broods of poikilotherms, but some species of fish and crocodilians have the potential for dominance among broodmates. Copyright © 2006 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved.
|
|