FREE SHIPPING over $40
OVER 9000 FIVE-STAR REVIEWS
5% OFF ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS
100% HAPPINESS GUARANTEE
Analyze Diet
0
Home / Equine Research Bank / Animals (Basel) / Are Users Good Assessors of Social Dominance in Domestic Hor...
Animals : an open access journal from MDPI2024; 14(13); 1999; doi: 10.3390/ani14131999

Are Users Good Assessors of Social Dominance in Domestic Horses?

Abstract: Horse users and caretakers must be aware of the risks of mixing social groups. The current study investigated whether eight equine practitioners can assess the social dominance rank of 20 horses. The horses' feeding time and agonistic/aggressive and submissive behaviours were observed during the feed confrontation test, and the dominance index (DI) was calculated. Kendal's W, Spearman correlations and factor analysis were applied to test the raters' agreement, the relationship between dominance ranks and the behavioural variables, and to determine the clustered behaviours. The agreement between all raters in the classification of dominance order ranged from moderate to perfect. The ranking by every rater was strongly and negatively correlated with the time of eating in feed confrontation tests and with the DI, evidencing shorter feeding times for more submissive horses. The withdrawal of the horse when threatened was the behavioural variable that was most often correlated with raters' ranking. The current study confirmed the abilities of practitioners to categorise the horses under their care according to their social interactions. Additionally, rolling when denied access to feed was proposed as frustration-releasing (redirected) behaviour.
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2024-07-07 PubMed ID: 38998111PubMed Central: PMC11240818DOI: 10.3390/ani14131999Google Scholar: Lookup
The Equine Research Bank provides access to a large database of publicly available scientific literature. Inclusion in the Research Bank does not imply endorsement of study methods or findings by Mad Barn.
LinkedInCopy
  • Journal Article

Summary

This research summary has been generated with artificial intelligence and may contain errors and omissions. Refer to the original study to confirm details provided. Submit correction.

The study primarily investigates the ability of horse care practitioners to accurately assess the social hierarchy among horses in their care. The results suggest that practitioners are largely able to correctly identify submissive horses, with indications such as feed time and certain behaviors effectively signaling the social rank of each horse.

Objective and Methodology

  • This study aimed to examine whether eight horse caretakers can accurately determine the social dominance in a group of 20 horses under their care.
  • The horses’ feeding time, aggressive/submissive behaviors, and confrontation behaviors during feeding were observed and recorded for assessment.
  • The dominance index (DI) was computed and shared to raters. Various statistical test like Kendal’s W, Spearman correlations, and factor analysis methods were used to measure the raters’ agreement, the relationship between the behaviors, and the ranking of dominance.

Results and Findings

  • The raters’ agreement on the dominance hierarchy among the horses ranged from moderate to strong, suggesting a general consensus on the social ranks among the horses.
  • The study found strong negative correlations between the raters’ ranking and behaviors like feeding time and calculated DI, suggesting that more submissive horses have shorter feeding times.
  • The primary indicator of a horse’s rank was its withdrawal when threatened, which was most closely linked to raters’ assessments of the horses’ ranks.

Conclusion and Implications

  • The study confirmed that horse caregivers possess a reasonable ability to categorize the horses under their care according to the animals’ social interactions.
  • In addition, a unique finding of the study was the proposal of a potential redirected behavior in horses: the act of rolling when denied access to feed could indicate the release of frustration.
  • These findings can have practical implications for caretakers and those in the equine industry regarding the management of social groupings among horses and understanding their behavior better.

Cite This Article

APA
Jastrzębska E, Siemieniuch M, Bizio A, Pietruszka J, Górecka-Bruzda A. (2024). Are Users Good Assessors of Social Dominance in Domestic Horses? Animals (Basel), 14(13), 1999. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani14131999

Publication

Animals : an open access journal from MDPI
ISSN: 2076-2615
NlmUniqueID: 101635614
Country: Switzerland
Language: English
Volume: 14
Issue: 13
PII: 1999

Researcher Affiliations

Jastrzębska, Ewa
  • Department of Horse Breeding and Riding, Faculty of Animal Bioengineering, University of Warmia and Mazury, Oczapowskiego 5, 10-719 Olsztyn, Poland.
Siemieniuch, Marta
  • Research Station of the Institute of Animal Reproduction and Food Research of PAS, Popielno 25, 12-220 Ruciane-Nida, Poland.
Bizio, Adriana
  • Department of Horse Breeding and Riding, Faculty of Animal Bioengineering, University of Warmia and Mazury, Oczapowskiego 5, 10-719 Olsztyn, Poland.
Pietruszka, Julia
  • Department of Horse Breeding and Riding, Faculty of Animal Bioengineering, University of Warmia and Mazury, Oczapowskiego 5, 10-719 Olsztyn, Poland.
Górecka-Bruzda, Aleksandra
  • Department of Animal Behaviour and Welfare, Institute of Genetics and Animal Biotechnology, Polish Academy of Sciences, 05-552 Jastrzębiec, Poland.

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

This article includes 43 references
  1. Keaveney S.M.. Equines and their human companions.. J. Bus. Res. 2008;61:444–454.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2007.07.017google scholar: lookup
  2. Danby P., Grajfoner D.. Human–equine tourism and nature-based solutions: Exploring psychological well-being through transformational experiences.. J. Hosp. Tour. Res. 2022;46:607–629.
    doi: 10.1177/1096348020978555google scholar: lookup
  3. Brown S.E.. Companion animals as self-objects.. Anthrozoös 2007;20:329–343.
    doi: 10.2752/089279307X245654google scholar: lookup
  4. Berger J.. Organizational systems and dominance in feral horses in the Grand Canyon.. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 1997;2:131–146.
    doi: 10.1007/BF00361898google scholar: lookup
  5. Linnartz L., Linnartz-Nieuwdorp E.. The social organisation of natural herds of koniks (Equus caballus): Subordinate stallions, rule or exception?. Lutra 2017;60:27–42.
  6. Ozogány K., Kerekes V., Fülöp A., Barta Z., Nagy M.. Fine-scale collective movements reveal present, past and future dynamics of a multilevel society in Przewalski’s horses.. Nat. Commun. 2023;14:5096.
    doi: 10.1038/s41467-023-40523-3pmc: PMC10480438pubmed: 37669934google scholar: lookup
  7. Fraser A.. The Behaviour and Welfare of the Horse.. 2010.
    doi: 10.5555/20103153915google scholar: lookup
  8. Houpt K.A., Law K., Martinisi V.. Dominance hierarchies in domestic horses.. Appl. Anim. Ethol. 1978;4:273–283.
    doi: 10.1016/0304-3762(78)90117-7google scholar: lookup
  9. Ellard M.E., Crowell-Davis S.L.. Evaluating equine dominance in draft mares.. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 1989;24:55–75.
    doi: 10.1016/0168-1591(89)90125-1google scholar: lookup
  10. Knubben J.M., Furst A., Gygax L., Staﾬher M.. Bite and kick injuries in horses: Prevalence, risk factors and prevention.. Equine Vet. J. 2008;40:219–223.
    doi: 10.2746/042516408X253118pubmed: 18086579google scholar: lookup
  11. Górecka-Bruzda A., Jaworska J., Stanley C.R.. The Social and Reproductive Challenges Faced by Free-Roaming Horse (Equus caballus) Stallions.. Animals 2023;13:1151.
    doi: 10.3390/ani13071151pmc: PMC10093049pubmed: 37048406google scholar: lookup
  12. Burla J.B., Ostertag A., Patt A., Bachmann I., Hillmann E.. Effects of feeding management and group composition on agonistic behaviour of group-housed horses.. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2016;176:32–42.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2016.01.011google scholar: lookup
  13. Lehmann K., Kallweit E., Ellendorff F.. Social hierarchy in exercised and untrained group-housed horses—A brief report.. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2006;96:343–347.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2005.06.010google scholar: lookup
  14. Torres Borda L., Kelemen Z., Auer U., Jenner F.. Video Ethogram of Equine Social Behaviour.. Animals 2024;14:1179.
    doi: 10.3390/ani14081179pmc: PMC11047489pubmed: 38672327google scholar: lookup
  15. McDonnell S.M., Haviland J.C.S.. Agonistic ethogram of the equid bachelor band.. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 1995;43:147–188.
    doi: 10.1016/0168-1591(94)00550-Xgoogle scholar: lookup
  16. Clark L., Butler K., Ritchie K.L., Maréchal L.. The importance of first impression judgements in interspecies interactions.. Sci. Rep. 2020;10:2218.
    doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-58867-xpmc: PMC7010793pubmed: 32042066google scholar: lookup
  17. Yeon S.C.. Acoustic communication in the domestic horse (Equus caballus). J. Vet. Behav. 2012;7:179–185.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jveb.2011.08.004google scholar: lookup
  18. Goodale E., Beauchamp G., Magrath R.D., Nieh J.C., Ruxton G.D.. Interspecific information transfer influences animal community structure.. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2010;25:354–361.
    doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2010.01.002pubmed: 20153073google scholar: lookup
  19. Schuurman N., Franklin A.. Equine Cultures in Transition.. 2019.
    doi: 10.4324/9781351002479-16/interpreting-animals-spaces-cohabitance-nora-schuurman-alex-franklingoogle scholar: lookup
  20. Serpell J.. Anthropomorphism and anthropomorphic selection—Beyond the “cute response”.. Soc. Anim. 2003;11:83–100.
    doi: 10.1163/156853003321618864google scholar: lookup
  21. Epley N., Schroeder J., Waytz A.. Motivated Mind Perception: Treating Pets as People and People as Animals.. .
    doi: 10.1007/978-1-4614-6959-9_6pubmed: 23947281google scholar: lookup
  22. Reid K., Rogers C.W., Gronqvist G., Gee E.K., Bolwell C.F.. Anxiety and pain in horses measured by heart rate variability and behavior.. J. Vet. Behav. 2017;22:1–6.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jveb.2017.09.002google scholar: lookup
  23. Momozawa Y., Ono T., Sato F., Kikusui T., Takeuchi Y., Mori Y., Kusunose R.. Assessment of equine temperament by a questionnaire survey to caretakers and evaluation of its reliability by simultaneous behavior test.. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2003;84:127–138.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2003.08.001google scholar: lookup
  24. Suwała M., Górecka-Bruzda A., Walczak M., Ensminger J., Jezierski T.. A desired profile of horse personality–A survey study of Polish equestrians based on a new approach to equine temperament and character.. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2016;180:65–77.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2016.04.011google scholar: lookup
  25. Ijichi C., Collins L.M., Creighton E., Elwood R.W.. Harnessing the power of personality assessment: Subjective assessment predicts behaviour in horses.. Behav. Process. 2013;96:47–52.
    doi: 10.1016/j.beproc.2013.02.017pubmed: 23500483google scholar: lookup
  26. Duberstein K.J., Gilkeson J.A.. Determination of sex differences in personality and trainability of yearling horses utilizing a handler questionnaire.. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2010;128:57–63.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2010.09.012google scholar: lookup
  27. Christensen J.W., Munk R., Hawson L., Palme R., Larsen T., Egenvall A., König von Borstel U.K., Rørvang M.V.. Rider effects on horses’ conflict behaviour, rein tension, physiological measures and rideability scores.. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2021;234:105184.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2020.105184google scholar: lookup
  28. Dalla Costa E., Dai F., Lebelt D., Scholz P., Barbieri S., Canali E., Zanella A.J., Minero M.. Welfare assessment of horses: The AWIN approach.. Anim. Welf. 2016;25:481–488.
    doi: 10.7120/09627286.25.4.481google scholar: lookup
  29. Coles B.A.. No Pain, More Gain? Evaluating Pain Alleviation Post Equine Orthopedic Surgery Using Subjective and Objective Measurements.. .
  30. Elia J.B., Erb H.N., Houpt K.A.. Motivation for hay: Effects of a pelleted diet on behavior and physiology of horses.. Physiol. Behav. 2010;101:623–627.
    doi: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2010.09.010pubmed: 20869976google scholar: lookup
  31. Boyd L.E.. The behaviour of Przewalski’s horses and its importance to their management.. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 1991;29:301–318.
    doi: 10.1016/0168-1591(91)90256-Wgoogle scholar: lookup
  32. Jezierski T., Górecka A.. Changes in the horses heart rate during different levels of social isolation.. Anim. Sci. Pap. Rep. 2000;18:33–41.
  33. Matsui K., Khalil A.M., Takeda K.I.. Do horses prefer certain substrates for rolling in grazing pasture?. J. Equine Vet. Sci. 2009;29:590–594.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jevs.2009.05.011google scholar: lookup
  34. Stomp M., Leroux M., Cellier M., Henry S., Lemasson A., Hausberger M.. An unexpected acoustic indicator of positive emotions in horses.. PLoS ONE 2018;13:e0197898.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0197898pmc: PMC6040684pubmed: 29995876google scholar: lookup
  35. Luz M.P., Maia C.M., Gonçalvez H.C., Puoli Filho J.N.P.. Influence of workload and weather conditions on rolling behaviour of horses and mules.. Behav. Process. 2021;189:104433.
    doi: 10.1016/j.beproc.2021.104433pubmed: 34090953google scholar: lookup
  36. Ashari N.F.A.M., Hanis F., Yunos M.R.M., Baharudin F.. Effects of space and exercise on the rolling behaviour in stabled horses.. J. Equine Vet. Sci. 2021;100:103563.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jevs.2021.103563google scholar: lookup
  37. Freire R., Buckley P., Cooper J.J.. Effects of different forms of exercise on post inhibitory rebound and unwanted behaviour in stabled horses.. Equine Vet. J. 2009;41:487–492.
    doi: 10.2746/095777309X383883pubmed: 19642410google scholar: lookup
  38. Górecka-Bruzda A., Fureix C., Ouvrard A., Bourjade M., Hausberger M.. Investigating determinants of yawning in the domestic (Equus caballus) and Przewalski (Equus ferus przewalskii) horses.. Sci. Nat. 2016;103:72.
    doi: 10.1007/s00114-016-1395-7pmc: PMC4992016pubmed: 27542092google scholar: lookup
  39. Huo X., Yaemklang S., Pimmai P., Kupittayanant P., Na-Lampang P.. A preliminary study of the effects of enrichment on stereotypic and non-stereotypic stabled horses.. Vet. Integr. Sci. 2021;19:581–590.
    doi: 10.12982/VIS.2021.045google scholar: lookup
  40. Appleby M.C.. Social rank and food access in red deer stags.. Behaviour 1980;74:294–309.
    doi: 10.1163/156853980X00519google scholar: lookup
  41. Giles S.L., Nicol C.J., Harris P.A., Rands S.A.. Dominance rank is associated with body condition in outdoor-living domestic horses (Equus caballus). Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2015;166:71–79.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2015.02.019pmc: PMC4407901pubmed: 25937683google scholar: lookup
  42. Krahn J., Foris B., Weary D.M., von Keyserlingk M.A.. Invited review: Social dominance in dairy cattle: A critical review with guidelines for future research.. J. Dairy Sci. 2023;106:1489–1501.
    doi: 10.3168/jds.2022-22534pubmed: 36586796google scholar: lookup
  43. Tuyttens F.A.M., de Graaf S., Heerkens J.L.T., Jacobs L., Nalon E., Ott S., Stadig L., Van Laer E., Ampe B.. Observer bias in animal behaviour research: Can we believe what we score, if we score what we believe?. Anim. Behav. 2014;90:273–280.
    doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2014.02.007google scholar: lookup

Citations

This article has been cited 0 times.
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join 99,344 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.