Reported Agonistic Behaviours in Domestic Horses Cluster According to Context.

Agonistic behaviours are often directed at other animals for self-defence or to increase distance from valued resources, such as food. Examples include aggression and counter-predator behaviours. Contemporary diets may boost the value of food as a resource and create unanticipated associations with the humans who deliver it. At the same time the domestic horse is asked to carry the weight of riders and perform manoeuvres that, ethologically, are out-of-context and may be associated with instances of pain, confusion, or fear. Agonistic responses can endanger personnel and conspecifics. They are traditionally grouped along with so-called vices as being undesirable and worthy of punishment; a response that can often make horses more dangerous. The current study used data from the validated online Equine Behavioural and Research Questionnaire (E-BARQ) to explore the agonistic behaviours (as reported by the owners) of 2734 horses. With a focus on ridden horses, the behaviours of interest in the current study ranged from biting and bite threats and kicking and kick threats to tail swishing as an accompaniment to signs of escalating irritation when horses are approached, prepared for ridden work, ridden, and hosed down (e.g., after work). Analysis of the responses according to the context in which they arise included a dendrographic analysis that identified five clusters of agonistic behaviours among certain groups of horses and a principal component analysis that revealed six components, strongly related to the five clusters. Taken together, these results highlight the prospect that the motivation to show these responses differs with context. The clusters with common characteristics were those observed in the context of: locomotion under saddle; saddling; reactions in a familiar environment, inter-specific threats, and intra-specific threats. These findings highlight the potential roles of fear and pain in such unwelcome responses and challenge the simplistic view that the problems lie with the nature of the horses themselves rather than historic or current management practices. Improved understanding of agonistic responses in horses will reduce the inclination of owners to label horses that show such context-specific responses as being generally aggressive.

Morphometric Characteristics of the Skull in Horses and Donkeys-A Pilot Study.

Horses and donkeys belong to the genus Equus, but important differences exist between the species, many of which affect their management and welfare. This study compared skull morphology between horses and donkeys. Horse (n = 14) and donkey (n = 16) heads were obtained post-mortem, sectioned sagittally close to the midline, and photographed for subsequent measurement of various skull structures. Skull, cranial, nasal, and profile indices were calculated for topographical comparisons between the species. The olfactory bulb area (OBA), OB pitch (the angle between the hard palate and the OB axis), and whorl location (WL) were also measured. A General Linear Model determined the main effect of species with Sidak's multiple comparisons of species' differences among the various measurements. There was no species difference in cranial or nasal indices (p > 0.13), but donkeys had a larger cranial profile than horses (p < 0.04). Donkeys had a smaller OBA (p < 0.05) and a steeper OB pitch (p < 0.02) than horses. The WL corresponded to the level of the OB in horses but was extremely rostral in donkeys (p < 0.0001). These results show clear differentiation in skull morphology between horses and donkeys. This may be useful in validating other physiological and behavioural differences between horses and donkeys.

The price of good welfare: Does informing consumers about what on-package labels mean for animal welfare influence their purchase intentions?

Public concern for farm animal welfare is growing. However, high welfare purchases require consumers to make sense of often confusing labels. This study aims to investigate consumers' preferences for higher welfare products with on-package animal welfare labels and to explore whether providing consumers with detailed information about the welfare conditions behind on-package animal welfare labels could have a positive influence on farm animal welfare. The survey was conducted online and involved participants (N = 1612) being randomly assigned into one of two-treatment groups: (1) an animal welfare label and (2) an animal welfare label with details about the welfare standards signified by that label. Participants were asked their intentions to purchase products with varying animal welfare labels. Participants were also surveyed with an adapted version of the Animal Attitude Scale that measured pro-welfare attitudes, resulting in an Animal Empathy Score (AES), a series of demographics questions, and to rate the welfare of pigs, chickens and laying hens in Australian food production. The results revealed that the provision of additional information significantly increased intention to purchase higher than conventional welfare products. The empathy measures revealed that younger participants, females and those with lower household incomes all had significantly higher AES. Moreover, AES was associated with intent to purchase higher welfare products. No interaction terms were significant, suggesting that the positive influence of information on purchase intentions is not dependent on participants' pro-welfare attitudes. Given animal welfare is market-driven in countries such as Australia, the findings suggest that providing farm animal welfare information at the point-of-purchase could boost appreciation and demand for higher than conventional welfare products.