Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-gtxcr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T05:01:28.469Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Preference for heights of feeding troughs in mares: a pilot study

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

MPF Luz ,
CM Maia ,
LAS Arruda ,
MF Delagracia  and
JNPP Filho
MPF Luz
Affiliation:
University of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Husbandry (FMVZ), Universidade Estadual Paulista ‘Júlio de Mesquita Filho’, Botucatu, São Paulo, Brazil
CM Maia*
Affiliation:
Laboratory of Animal Physiology and Behaviour, Department of Physiology, IBB, Universidade Estadual Paulista ‘Júlio de Mesquita Filho’, Botucatu, São Paulo, Brazil
LAS Arruda
Affiliation:
University of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Husbandry (FMVZ), Universidade Estadual Paulista ‘Júlio de Mesquita Filho’, Botucatu, São Paulo, Brazil
MF Delagracia
Affiliation:
University of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Husbandry (FMVZ), Universidade Estadual Paulista ‘Júlio de Mesquita Filho’, Botucatu, São Paulo, Brazil
JNPP Filho
Affiliation:
University of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Husbandry (FMVZ), Universidade Estadual Paulista ‘Júlio de Mesquita Filho’, Botucatu, São Paulo, Brazil
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: carolmm_luzi@hotmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Preferences for the height of feeding troughs of seven mares were evaluated and, as awareness of surroundings when feeding is adaptive for horses, the relationship between preference responses and attention behaviours was also assessed. First, feeding troughs at four heights (0, 25, 50, and 75 cm) were provided for 16 days, and the amount of time animals ate from each height option was measured daily. These data were used to determine the preferred/non-preferred options for each individual. An overall preference for heights of 50 and 75 cm was detected, but responses showed significant individual variation The same animals were subsequently observed, when feeding from preferred (four days) or non-preferred (four days) trough heights, while their behaviours were recorded. Moving ears/head (attention behaviours) occurred more frequently when feeding from preferred heights of feeding troughs. We concluded that to ensure better welfare conditions for the mares in this study, it was important to consider the individual variation of such preferences if possible, however, by using troughs positioned at 50 or 75 cm, the general preference could be assured. Moreover, when feeding from their preferred heights, the study mares paid more attention to their surroundings than when feeding from their non-preferred height and thus it is likely that they defended their preferred options more. However, further studies are needed to evaluate the generalisability of these findings. We have demonstrated a methodology to assess mares’ preferences and provided some preliminary data on the relationship between preferences/non-preferences and the possible emotional states of mares.

Keywords

animal welfareattentionfeedingmarePreference Indextrough
Type
Articles
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 28 , Issue 2 , May 2019 , pp. 205 - 214
Copyright
© 2019 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Allen, E, Martinson, K and Sheaffer, C 2011 Equine grazing preferences and persistence of cool-season grasses. Journal of Equine Veterinary Science 31: 291–292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jevs.2011.03.118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Altmann, J 1974 Observational study of behaviour: sampling methods. Behaviour 49: 227–267. https://doi.org/10.1163/156853974X00534Google ScholarPubMed
Baragli, P, Paoletti, E, Pacchini, S and Mart, F 2009 Influenza di un protocolo di arricchimento ambientale sul comportamento dei cavalli in scuderia. Ippologia 20: 23–33. [Title translation: Influence of an environmental enrichment protocol on the behav-iour of stable horses]Google Scholar
Broom, DM and Fraser, A 2010 Domestic Animal Behaviour and Welfare. CABI: Wallingford, UKGoogle Scholar
Burfeind, DD, Tibbetts, IR and Udy, JW 2009 Habitat preference of three common fishes for seagrass, Caulerpa taxifolia and unvege-tated substrate in Moreton Bay, Australia. Environmental Biology of Fishes 84: 317–322. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10641-009-9444-0Google Scholar
Cairns, MC, Cooper, J, Davidson, H and Mills, D 2002 Association in horses of orosensory characteristics of foods with their postingestive consequences. Animal Science 75(2): 257-265. ttps://doi.org/10.1017/S1357729800053017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawkins, MS 2006 Through animal eyes: what behavior tells us. Applied Animal Behavior Science 100: 4–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2006.04.010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawkins, MS 2008 The science of animal suffering. Ethology 114:937–945. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0310.2008.01557.xGoogle Scholar
Feist, JD and McCullough, DR 2010 Behavior patterns and communication in feral horses. Zeitschrift Für Tierpsychologie 41:337–371. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0310.1976.tb00947.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galhardo, L, Almeida, O and Oliveira, RF 2009 Preference for the presence of substrate in male cichlid fish: Effects of social dominance and context. Applied Animal Behavior Science 120: 224–230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2009.07.001Google Scholar
Girguis, PR and Lee, RW 2006 Thermal preference and toler-ance of alvinellids. Science 312: 231. https://doi.org/10.1126/scien-ce.1125286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gonçalves, DM and Oliveira, RF 2003 Time spent close to a sexual partner as a measure of female mate preference in a sex-role-reversed population of the blenny Salaria pavo (Risso)(Pisces: Blenniidae). Acta Ethologica 6: 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10211-003-0083-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Granger, WA 1908 A revision of the American Eocene horses. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 24: 221–264Google Scholar
Holcomb, KE, Tucker, CB and Stull, CL 2014 Preference of domestic horses for shade in a hot, sunny environment Journal of Animal Science 92: 1708–1717. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2013-7386Google Scholar
Larose, C, Richard-Yris, MA, Hausberger, M and Rogers, LJ 2006 Laterality of horses associated with emotionality in novel situations. Laterality: Asymmetries of Body, Brain, and Cognition v 11: 355–367CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lewis, LD 1995 Equine Clinical Nutrition. Wiley-Blackwell: USAGoogle Scholar
Liao, WB and Lu, X 2009 Male mate choice in the Andrew's toad Bufo andrewsi: a preference for larger females. Journal of Ethology 27: 413–417. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10164-008-0135-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luz, MPF, Maia, CM, Pantoja, JCF, Chiquitelli Neto, M and Puoli Filho, JNP 2015 Feeding time and agonistic behavior in horses: Influence of distance, proportion, and height of troughs. Journal of Equine Veterinary Science 35: 843–848. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jevs.2015.08.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maia, CM, Ferguson, B, Volpato, GL and Braithwaite, VA 2017 Physical and psychological motivation tests of individual pref-erences in rainbow trout. Journal of Zoology 302: 108–118. https://doi.org/10.1111/jzo.12438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maia, CM and Volpato, GL 2016 A history-based method to estimate animal preference. Scientific Reports 6: 283–288. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep28328CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maia, CM and Volpato, GL 2018 Correction: Preference index supported by motivation tests in Nile tilapia. PLoS One 13: 192–228. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0192283CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Matsui, K, Khalil, AM and Takeda, K 2009 Do horses prefer certain substrates for rolling in grazing pasture? Journal of Equine Veterinary Science 29: 590–594. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jevs.2009.05.011Google Scholar
Matsumoto, Y, Takegaki, T, Tawa, A and Natsukari, Y 2008 Female within-nest spawning-site preference in a paternal brooding blenny and its effect on the female mate choice. Journal of Zoology 276: 48–53. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7998.2008.00467.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCann, JS and Hoveland, CS 1991 Equine grazing preferences among winter annual grasses and clovers adapted to the south-eastern United States. Journal of Equine Veterinary Science 11: 275–277. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0737-0806(06)81314-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDonnell, S 2003 A Practical Field Guide to Horse Behavior. Eclipse Press: Boston, USAGoogle Scholar
Muller, CE and Uden, P 2007 Preference of horses for grass conserved as hay, haylage or silage. Animal Feed Science and Technology 132: 66–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeeds-ci.2006.02.013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Research Council 2007 Nutrient Requirement of Horses. The National Academies Press: Washington, USAGoogle Scholar
Odberg, FO 1973 An interpretation of pawing by the horse (Equus caballusa Linnaeus), displacement activity and original functions. Saugetierkund 21: 1–12Google Scholar
Ransom, JI and Cade, BS 2009 Quantifying equid behaviour: A research ethogram for free-roaming feral horses. US Geological Survey Techniques and Method: Virginia, USAGoogle Scholar
Rochais, C, Sebilleau, M, Houdebine, M, Bec, P, Hausberger, M and Henry, S 2017 A novel test for evaluating horses’ spon-taneous visual attention is predictive of attention in operant learning tasks. The Science of Nature 104: 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00114-017-1480-6Google Scholar
Ryan, MJ 1980 Female mate choice in a neotropical frog. Science 209: 523–525. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.209.4455.523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schlupp, I, Waschulewski, M and Ryan, MJ 1999 Female pref-erences for naturally occurring novel male traits. Behavior 136:519–527. https://doi.org/10.1163/156853999501450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sillar, KT, Picton, LD and Heitler, WJ 2016 The Neuroethology of Predation and Escape. Wiley-Blackwell: Oxford, UK. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118527061CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snowberg, LK and Benkman, CW 2009 Mate choice based on a key ecological performance trait. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 22: 762–769. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1420-9101.2009.01699.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Soriguer, MC, Domezain, A, Aragones, J, Domezain, J and Hernando, JA 2002 Feeding preference in juveniles of Acipenser naccarii Bonaparte 1836. Journal of Applied Ichthyology 18: 691–694. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1439-0426.2002.00424.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sweeting, MP, Houpt, CE and Houpt, KA 1985 Social facilitation of feeding and time budgets in stabled ponies. Journal of Animal Science 60: 369–374. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas1985.602369xGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thomas, SA 2002 Scent marking and mate choice in the prairie vole, Microtus ochrogaster. Animal Behavior 63: 1121–1127. https://doi.org/10.1006/anbe.2002.3014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Volpato, GL, Freitas, EG and Castilho, MF 2007 Insights into the concept of fish welfare. Diseases of Aquatic Organisms 75: 165–171. https://doi.org/10.3354/dao075165Google ScholarPubMed
Volpato, GL, Giaquinto, PC, de Castilho, MF, Barreto, RE and Goncalves de Freitas, E 2009 Animal welfare: from con-cepts to reality. Oecologia Brasiliensis 13: 5–15Google Scholar
Waran, N and Randle, H 2017 What we can measure, we can manage: The importance of using robust welfare indicators in Equitation Science. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 190: 74–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2017.02.016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webster, MM and Hart, PJB 2004 Substrate discrimination and preference in foraging fish. Animal Behavior 68: 1071–1077. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2004.04.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wheeler, EF 2006 Horse Stable and Riding Arena Design. Blackwell Publishing: Iowa, USA. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470344675CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zizzari, V, Braakhuis, A, van Straalen, NM and Ellers, J 2009 Female preference and fitness benefits of mate choice in a species with dissociated sperm transfer. Animal Behavior 78: 1261–1267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2009.08.014CrossRefGoogle Scholar