9
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Enhanced Understanding of Horse–Human Interactions to Optimize Welfare

      review-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Simple Summary

          Horses are used by humans for sport, companionship, and as a working animal. Understanding how horses perceive and interact with humans can aid in developing positive interaction approaches, thereby enhancing their welfare. It is also important to be able to recognize behavioural indicators of negative affective states, as the failure to do so when working with horses will negatively impact their welfare when working with humans. The objective of this review is to highlight the current literature surrounding horse–human interaction through the horse’s sensory capabilities, cognition, emotional states, emotional transfer, personality, and attachment styles. This review reveals the various ways horses read humans, such as by our odours, posture, and vocal repertoire, all of which affect the horse’s interpretation of us. While it is difficult to truly know how a horse thinks and feels, paying attention to subtle behavioural signals can give us insight on how horses prefer humans to interact with them. As we are continuously growing our knowledge on how horses view humans, it is important for those working with horses for sport, companionship, or as a working animal to be open to evolving and modifying tactics used to create a positive experience for the horse.

          Abstract

          Horses ( Equus caballus) have been domesticated for millennia and are regularly utilized for work, sport, and companionship. Enhanced understanding of human–horse interactions can create avenues to optimize their welfare. This review explores the current research surrounding many aspects of human–horse interactions by first highlighting the horse’s sensory capabilities and how they pertain to human interactions. Evidence exists that suggests that horses can read humans in various ways through our body odours, posture, facial expressions, and attentiveness. The literature also suggests that horses are capable of remembering previous experiences when working with humans. The interrelatedness of equine cognition and affective states within the horse’s umwelt is then explored. From there, equine personality and the current literature regarding emotional transfer between humans and horses is examined. Even though horses may be capable of recognizing emotional states in humans, there remains a gap in the literature of whether horses are capable of empathizing with human emotion. The objective of this literature review is to explore aspects of the relationship between humans and horses to better understand the horse’s umwelt and thereby shed new light on potential positive approaches to enhance equine welfare with humans.

          Related collections

          Most cited references81

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Updating Animal Welfare Thinking: Moving beyond the “Five Freedoms” towards “A Life Worth Living”

          Simple Summary The Five Freedoms were formulated in the early 1990s and are now well recognised as highly influential in the animal welfare arena. However, a marked increase in scientific understanding over the last two decades now shows that the Five Freedoms do not capture, either in the specifics or the generality of their expression, the breadth and depth of current knowledge of the biological processes that are germane to understanding animal welfare and to guiding its management. For example, this paper refers to some negative experiences that can never be eliminated, merely temporarily neutralised, because they are essential for eliciting behaviours upon which the survival of the animal depends. In addition, it refers to other negative experiences that relate to an animal’s responses to living in poor environments which require improvement, and also to how such experiences may be replaced by positive ones when particular improvements are introduced. For animals to have “lives worth living” it is necessary, overall, to minimise their negative experiences and at the same time to provide the animals with opportunities to have positive experiences. These observations have implications for reviewing and potentially updating minimum standards in codes of welfare. The paper ends with an up-to-date characterisation of the principal features of animal welfare, expressed largely in non-technical terms. Abstract The Five Freedoms have had major impact on animal welfare thinking internationally. However, despite clear initial statements that the words ‘freedom from’ should indicate ‘as free as possible from’, the Freedoms have come to be represented as absolute or fundamental freedoms, even rights, by some animal advocate and other groups. Moreover, a marked increase in scientific understanding over the last two decades shows that the Freedoms do not capture the more nuanced knowledge of the biological processes that is germane to understanding animal welfare and which is now available to guide its management. For example, the named negative experiences of thirst, hunger, discomfort and pain, and others identified subsequently, including breathlessness, nausea, dizziness, debility, weakness and sickness, can never be eliminated, merely temporarily neutralised. Each one is a genetically embedded element that motivates animals to behave in particular ways to obtain specific life-sustaining resources, avoid or reduce physical harm or facilitate recovery from infection or injury. Their undoubted negativity creates a necessary sense of urgency to respond, without which animals would not survive. Also, the temporary neutralisation of these survival-critical affects does not in and of itself generate positive experience. This questions the commonly held assumption that good animal welfare will result when these internally generated negative affects are minimised. Animals may also experience other negative affects that include anxiety, fear, panic, frustration, anger, helplessness, loneliness, boredom and depression. These situation-related affects reflect animals’ perceptions of their external circumstances. Although they are elicited by threatening, cramped, barren and/or isolated conditions, they can often be replaced by positive affects when animals are kept with congenial others in spacious, stimulus-rich and safe environments which provide opportunities for them to engage in behaviours they find rewarding. These behaviours may include environment-focused exploration and food acquisition activities as well as animal-to-animal interactive activities, all of which can generate various forms of comfort, pleasure, interest, confidence and a sense of control. Animal welfare management should aim to reduce the intensity of survival-critical negative affects to tolerable levels that nevertheless still elicit the required behaviours, and should also provide opportunities for animals to behave in ways they find rewarding, noting that poor management of survival-critical affects reduces animals’ motivation to utilize such rewarding opportunities. This biologically more accurate understanding provides support for reviewing the adequacy of provisions in current codes of welfare or practice in order to ensure that animals are given greater opportunities to experience positive welfare states. The purpose is to help animals to have lives worth living, which is not possible when the predominant focus of such codes is on survival-critical measures. Finally, an updated characterisation of animal welfare that incorporates this more accurate understanding is presented.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Development of the Horse Grimace Scale (HGS) as a Pain Assessment Tool in Horses Undergoing Routine Castration

            Background The assessment of pain is critical for the welfare of horses, in particular when pain is induced by common management procedures such as castration. Existing pain assessment methods have several limitations, which reduce the applicability in everyday life. Assessment of facial expression changes, as a novel means of pain scoring, may offer numerous advantages and overcome some of these limitations. The objective of this study was to develop and validate a standardised pain scale based on facial expressions in horses (Horse Grimace Scale [HGS]). Methodology/Principal Findings Forty stallions were assigned to one of two treatments and all animals underwent routine surgical castration under general anaesthesia. Group A (n = 19) received a single injection of Flunixin immediately before anaesthesia. Group B (n = 21) received Flunixin immediately before anaesthesia and then again, as an oral administration, six hours after the surgery. In addition, six horses were used as anaesthesia controls (C). These animals underwent non-invasive, indolent procedures, received the same treatment as group A, but did not undergo surgical procedures that could be accompanied with surgical pain. Changes in behaviour, composite pain scale (CPS) scores and horse grimace scale (HGS) scores were assessed before and 8-hours post-procedure. Only horses undergoing castration (Groups A and B) showed significantly greater HGS and CPS scores at 8-hours post compared to pre operatively. Further, maintenance behaviours such as explorative behaviour and alertness were also reduced. No difference was observed between the two analgesic treatment groups. Conclusions The Horse Grimace Scale potentially offers an effective and reliable method of assessing pain following routine castration in horses. However, auxiliary studies are required to evaluate different painful conditions and analgesic schedules.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Use of experimenter-given cues in dogs.

              Since the observations of O. Pfungst the use of human-provided cues by animals has been well-known in the behavioural sciences ("Clever Hans effect"). It has recently been shown that rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta) are unable to use the direction of gazing by the experimenter as a cue for finding food, although after some training they learned to respond to pointing by hand. Direction of gaze is used by chimpanzees, however. Dogs (Canis familiaris) are believed to be sensitive to human gestural communication but their ability has never been formally tested. In three experiments we examined whether dogs can respond to cues given by humans. We found that dogs are able to utilize pointing, bowing, nodding, head-turning and glancing gestures of humans as cues for finding hidden food. Dogs were also able to generalize from one person (owner) to another familiar person (experimenter) in using the same gestures as cues. Baseline trials were run to test the possibility that odour cues alone could be responsible for the dogs' performance. During training individual performance showed limited variability, probably because some dogs already "knew" some of the cues from their earlier experiences with humans. We suggest that the phenomenon of dogs responding to cues given by humans is better analysed as a case of interspecific communication than in terms of discrimination learning.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: Academic Editor
                Journal
                Animals (Basel)
                Animals (Basel)
                animals
                Animals : an Open Access Journal from MDPI
                MDPI
                2076-2615
                09 May 2021
                May 2021
                : 11
                : 5
                : 1347
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Animal Biosciences, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON N1G 2W1, Canada; ofranzin@ 123456uoguelph.ca
                [2 ]Campbell Centre for the Study of Animal Welfare, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON N1G 2W1, Canada
                Author notes
                [* ]Correspondence: kmerkies@ 123456uoguelph.ca ; Tel.: +1-(519)-824-4120-x54707
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9462-4150
                Article
                animals-11-01347
                10.3390/ani11051347
                8151687
                34065156
                c0bf06cb-b2c1-48da-ad3c-76ab2f39a964
                © 2021 by the authors.

                Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

                History
                : 11 April 2021
                : 06 May 2021
                Categories
                Review

                positive welfare indicators,senses,affective state,emotional transfer,cognition,personality,attachment styles

                Comments

                Comment on this article