Abstract: Tool use has not yet been confirmed in horses, mules or donkeys. As this subject is difficult to research with conventional methods, we used a crowdsourcing approach to gather data. We contacted equid owners and carers and asked them to report and video examples of �unusual� behaviour via a dedicated website. We also searched YouTube and Facebook for videos of equids showing tool use. From 635 reports, including 1014 behaviours, we found 20 cases of tool use, 13 of which were unambiguous in that it was clear that the behaviour was not trained, caused by reduced welfare, incidental or accidental. We then assessed (a) the effect of management conditions on tool use and (b) whether the animals used tools alone, or socially, involving other equids or humans. We found that management restrictions were associated with corresponding tool use in 12 of the 13 cases (p = 0.01), e.g., equids using sticks to scrape hay within reach when feed was restricted. Furthermore, 8 of the 13 cases involved other equids or humans, such as horses using brushes to groom others. The most frequent tool use was for foraging, with seven examples, tool use for social purposes was seen in four cases, and there was just one case of tool use for escape. There was just one case of tool use for comfort, and in this instance, there were no management restrictions. Equids therefore can develop tool use, especially when management conditions are restricted, but it is a rare occurrence.

Abstract: Zusammenfassung
Gegenstand und Ziel Seit 2000 siedelt sich der Wolf in Deutschland wieder an. Mit steigenden Wolfszahlen nehmen die durch Wölfe verursachten Nutztierschäden zu, wobei auch Pferde betroffen sind. Ziel der Studie war es, einen Überblick zu dieser Problematik sowie Lösungsansätze zu geben.
Material und Methoden Anhand einer Literaturrecherche wurden Daten zur Wolfspopulation in Deutschland, wolfsbedingten Schäden sowie Möglichkeiten und Grenzen des Herdenschutzes beim Pferd eruiert. Eine Online-Befragung von Pferdehaltern/-besitzern diente dazu, die tatsächliche und/oder gefühlte Bedrohung durch Wölfe und die daraus resultierenden Auswirkungen auf die Pferdehaltung zu ermitteln.
Ergebnisse Die Literaturrecherche zeigte ein kontinuierliches Anwachsen der Wolfspopulation in den letzten Jahren und insbesondere seit 2016 einen deutlichen Anstieg wolfsverursachter Nutztierschäden, wobei Pferde selten betroffen waren. Bei der Online-Befragung stammte die Hälfte der 574 ausgewerteten Fragebögen aus Brandenburg und Niedersachsen. Den größten Einfluss auf die Gefährdungsbeurteilung eigener Pferde durch die wachsende Wolfspopulation hatte das Wissen der Pferdehalter über Wolfsangriffe im eigenen Landkreis, wobei insbesondere die Aspekte einer Haltung von Jungpferden und Weidegang für die Pferde eine Rolle spielten. 64 % der Befragten gaben an, ihre Pferdehaltung trotz der zunehmenden Wolfspopulation nicht geändert zu haben. Nur 8 von 576 Pferdehaltern gaben amtlich bestätigte Wolfsübergriffe an und 30 hatten einen vermuteten Wolfsschaden amtlichen Stellen nicht gemeldet. Mehr als die Hälfte der Befragten, die Kontakt zu einem Wolfsberater hatten, bezeichneten die Zusammenarbeit als nicht bis wenig zielführend.
Schlussfolgerung und klinische Relevanz Die Zahl amtlich bestätigter Wolfsangriffe auf Pferde ist gering. Durch einen grundsätzlich durchgeführten Gentest bei entsprechendem Verdacht ließen sich diese Zahlen objektivieren. Trotz des Bewusstseins einer zunehmenden Gefährdung von Pferden durch Wölfe unternehmen Pferdehalter überwiegend keine prophylaktischen Schutzmaßnahmen. Die Kommunikation zwischen den für das Wolfsmonitoring zuständigen Behörden und den Pferdehaltern erscheint verbesserungswürdig.
Abstract
Objective Since 2000 the wolf population is reestablishing itself in Germany. In consequence to increasing numbers, livestock damage caused by wolves is on the rise, with horses likewise being affected. The aim of the study was to provide an overview of this challenge and its possible solutions.
Material and methods Based on a literature research, data on the wolf population in Germany, wolf-related damage as well as possibilities and limitations of herd protection for horses were evaluated. An online survey addressed to horse owners/keepers served to determine the actual and/or perceived threat posed by wolves and the resulting effects on horse husbandry.
Results The literature search showed a continuous increase of the wolf population in recent years as well as a significant increase of wolf-caused livestock damage in general especially since 2016; although horses were rarely affected. Half of the 574 evaluated questionnaires were from Brandenburg and Lower Saxony. The greatest influence on the individual risk assessment concerning their own horses by the growing wolf population was the horse owners� knowledge of wolf attacks in their own county. Especially the aspects of keeping young horses as well as pasture keeping played a significant role. 64 % of respondents indicated that they had not changed their horse management practices despite the increasing wolf population. Only 8 of 576 horse owners had reported officially confirmed wolf attacks and 30 respondents had not reported a suspected wolf damage to official agencies. More than half of the respondents who had contact with a wolf advisor described the cooperation as either not or only slightly purposeful.
Conclusion and clinical relevance The number of officially confirmed wolf attacks on horses is low. These numbers could be objectified by a routinely performed genetic test in case of corresponding suspicion. Despite the awareness of an increasing danger of horses by wolves, horse owners mostly do not undertake prophylactic protection measures. The communication between responsible authorities for wolf monitoring and horse owners seems to be in need of improvement.

Abstract: Every animal species has particular environmental requirements that are essential for its welfare, and when these so-called “basic needs” are not fulfilled, the animals suffer. The basic needs of horses have been claimed to be social contact, social companionship, free movement and access to roughage. To assess whether horses suffer when one or more of the four proposed basic needs are restricted, we examined several studies (n = 38) that reported behavioural and physiological reactions to these restrictions. We assigned the studies according to the four types of responses investigated: (a) Stress, (b) Active, (c) Passive, and (d) Abnormal Behaviour. Furthermore, the number of studies indicating that horses reacted to the restrictions were compared with the number of studies reporting no reaction. The limited number of studies available on single management restrictions did not allow conclusions to be drawn on the effect of each restriction separately, especially in the case of social companionship. However, when combinations of social contact, free movement and access to roughage were restricted, many of the horses had developed responses consistent with suffering. Passive Responses, indicating acute suffering, and Abnormal Behaviour, indicating suffering currently or at some time in the past, were especially clearly demonstrated. This provides further evidence of the usefulness of assessing behavioural parameters in combination with physiological measurements when evaluating horse welfare. This meta-analysis of the literature confirms that it is justified to claim that social contact, free movement and access to roughage are basic needs in horses.

Abstract: Coat clipping is a common practice in sport horses; however, timing, purpose, technique, and clips vary widely, as do the management and feeding of a clipped horse. The aim of this study was to collect data regarding common clipping practices. A questionnaire was published online in Germany and contained 32 questions. Four hundred ninety-eight people answered at least one question, and 373 individuals (7% male, 93% female; ages 14–59 years) completed all the questions. Clipped horses were predominantly used as sport horses (68%), and they were either clipped immediately before or during the winter season (88%) or year-round (7%). The clipping date was scheduled according to hair length (52%), sweat amount (47%), and drying time (47%). Participants primarily used two clips: the hunter clip and the blanket clip, both without clipping the head (23% each). The majority of the clipped horses wore a blanket day and night (> 90%). Future studies with observations in the field are needed to support survey data in an effort to develop welfare recommendations for clipping practices utilized with horses.

Abstract: Context. Livestock producers worldwide are negatively affected by livestock losses because of predators and wildlife-transmitted diseases. In the western Great Lakes Region of the United States, this conflict has increased as grey wolf (Canis lupus) populations have recovered and white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) have served as a wildlife reservoir for bovine tuberculosis (Myobacterium bovis).Aims. We conducted field experiments on cattle farms to evaluate the effectiveness of livestock-protection dogs (LPDs) for excluding wolves, coyotes (C. latrans), white-tailed deer and mesopredators from livestock pastures.Methods. We integrated LPDs on six cattle farms (treatment) and monitored wildlife use with tracking swaths on these farms, concurrent with three control cattle farms during 2005-2008. The amount of time deer spent in livestock pastures was recorded using direct observation.Key results. Livestock pastures protected by LPDs had reduced use by these wildlife compared with control pastures not protected by LPDs. White-tailed deer spent less time in livestock pastures protected by LPDs compared with control pastures not protected by LPDs.Conclusions. Our research supports the theory that LPDs can be an effective management tool for reducing predation and disease transmission. We also demonstrate that LPDs are not limited to being used only with sheep and goats; they can also be used to protect cattle.Implications. On the basis of our findings, we support the use of LPDs as a proactive management tool that producers can implement to minimise the threat of livestock depredations and transmission of disease from wildlife to livestock. LPDs should be investigated further as a more general conservation tool for protecting valuable wildlife, such as ground-nesting birds, that use livestock pastures and are affected by predators that use these pastures.