ArticlePDF AvailableLiterature Review

Moving toward Fear-Free Husbandry and Veterinary Care for Horses



Husbandry and veterinary procedures have the potential to generate fear and stress in animals. In horses, the associated responses can pose a significant safety risk to the human personnel involved in the procedure, as well as to the animal itself. Traditionally, physical restraint, punishment, and/or threat of an aversive, have been the most common strategies used to achieve compliance from the horse. However, from a welfare perspective, this is less than ideal. This approach also has the potential for creating a more dangerous response from the horse in future similar situations. When caring for companion animals, and captive animals within zoological facilities, there has been a steady transition away from this approach, and toward strategies aimed at reducing fear and stress during veterinary visits and when undertaking routine husbandry procedures. This review discusses the current approaches to horse care and training, the strategies being used in other animal sectors, and potential strategies for improving human safety, as well as the horse’s experience, during husbandry and veterinary procedures.
Animals 2022, 12, 2907.
Moving toward Fear-Free Husbandry and Veterinary Care
for Horses
Sharon L. Carroll
*, Benjamin W. Sykes
and Paul C. Mills
School of Veterinary Science, University of Queensland, Gatton, QLD 4343, Australia
School of Veterinary Science, Massey University, Palmerston North 4442, New Zealand
* Correspondence:; Tel.: +61-412826725
Simple Summary: Attitudes toward animal welfare have changed considerably over recent dec-
ades. Avoiding the experience of undue fear or stress in animals is a goal across many sectors in-
cluding production animals, captive zoo species, and companion animals. Husbandry and veteri-
nary procedures have the potential for generating fear and stress in animals; however, this can be
mitigated through the types of handling techniques used, and by undertaking training to ade-
quately prepare the animal for all aspects of the procedure. The companion animal sector and the
zoo sector have made significant strides towards recognizing and reducing fear during health care.
This review discusses the potential for improving horse experiences during husbandry and veteri-
nary procedures.
Abstract: Husbandry and veterinary procedures have the potential to generate fear and stress in
animals. In horses, the associated responses can pose a significant safety risk to the human personnel
involved in the procedure, as well as to the animal itself. Traditionally, physical restraint, punish-
ment, and/or threat of an aversive, have been the most common strategies used to achieve compli-
ance from the horse. However, from a welfare perspective, this is less than ideal. This approach also
has the potential for creating a more dangerous response from the horse in future similar situations.
When caring for companion animals, and captive animals within zoological facilities, there has been
a steady transition away from this approach, and toward strategies aimed at reducing fear and
stress during veterinary visits and when undertaking routine husbandry procedures. This review
discusses the current approaches to horse care and training, the strategies being used in other ani-
mal sectors, and potential strategies for improving human safety, as well as the horse’s experience,
during husbandry and veterinary procedures.
Keywords: animal welfare; veterinary procedure; husbandry procedure; fear-free; force-free;
training; cooperative care
1. The Horse in Society
The horse’s role throughout history, first as a meat animal and then a working ani-
mal, initially established their place as a “tool” to meet human needs. In more recent
times, the horse’s primary role has shifted to that of an athlete and companion, participat-
ing in racing and a wide variety of sports and leisure pursuits.
This current role has resulted in horses less commonly being referred to as livestock
or farm animals, and more frequently being referred to as companion animals [1,2]. Even
with this more modern classification, welfare concerns remain. Horse welfare has re-
ceived less attention than farmed livestock [1], and their role as a ridden animal exposes
them to specific welfare concerns that do not apply to other companion animals [1,3,4].
Perceptions regarding the impact of factors that affect horse welfare vary between non-
horse owners, horse owners, and competitors, and even vary depending on the discipline
Citation: Carroll, S.L.; Sykes, B.W.;
Mills, P.C. Moving toward Fear-Free
Husbandry and Veterinary Care for
Horses. Animals 2022, 12, 2907.
Academic Editor: Sue M. McDonnell
Received: 18 September 2022
Accepted: 20 October 2022
Published: 24 October 2022
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neu-
tral with regard to jurisdictional
claims in published maps and institu-
tional affiliations.
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors. Li-
censee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and con-
ditions of the Creative Commons At-
tribution (CC BY) license (https://cre-
Animals 2022, 12, 2907 2 of 17
in which an individual competes [5,6], suggesting that the “working” role of horses may
influence decisions about care and welfare.
Most horse owners and caregivers want the best for the horses in their care, despite
this, many of the decisions about housing, handling, care, and training are not welfare-
oriented [7–11]. Decisions relating to horse handling and care are frequently based on the
personal established beliefs of owners, trainers, and caregivers, often influenced by infor-
mation passed to them from previous generations of horse trainers [8]. The specific eques-
trian sector a person aligns with may also influence their beliefs about exactly what con-
stitutes appropriate care and welfare [5].
Even though humans have a lengthy and close history with horses, there are frequent
gaps in the owner’s/trainer’s/caregiver’s understanding of ethology, horse behaviour, and
indicators of welfare [7,8,12–17]. The science behind how animals learn, how they perceive
the world around them, and the way they respond to that information, is poorly under-
stood by many amateurs and professionals who work with horses [8,12,16,18–21]. In in-
stances where an owner/trainer/caregiver does have appropriate theoretical knowledge,
it still does not always translate into practical application [8,11]. In one survey, most re-
spondents identified that individual housing is a welfare concern for horses, and yet many
respondents in the same survey housed their horses individually [11].
Whilst owners, riders, trainers, and caregivers frequently describe how important the
relationship is between a horse and their human, the human–animal interactions (HAIs)
provided are often negative experiences for the horse, with many common handling and
training techniques focusing on achieving the human’s goal at the time, with limited con-
sideration of the horse’s emotional experience [22,23]. Negative reinforcement and pun-
ishment-based approaches are common in horse training and handling, with the goal be-
ing to generate behaviours that the human desires, with little true choice to the horse, and
limited reward for participation other than the relief from, or avoidance of, an aversive
stimulus [11,12].
2. Attitudes to Animal Welfare Associated with Husbandry and Veterinary
Procedures Outside of the Horse Sector
Attitudes toward animal welfare and the importance of considering the animal’s ex-
perience during a human–animal interaction (HAI) have changed considerably over re-
cent decades. Avoiding the animal’s experience of fear and associated stress responses has
been a key area of focus [24], with some sectors expanding this to include the need for the
animal to be able to express choice and feel a level of control over their participation in a
HAI, including training sessions, and husbandry and veterinary procedures (HVPs) [25].
Human–animal interactions can be negative, neutral, or positive. Minimising or elim-
inating negative HAIs is important for reducing fear and stress, but it has also been sug-
gested that routine incorporation of positive HAIs, such as petting and relaxed treat feed-
ing, is necessary to positively influence health, productivity, and behaviour [26,27].
In the production animal sector, the need to monitor and improve all aspects of wel-
fare has been influenced by evidence of increased handleability, improved human safety,
and increased productivity when animals are less stressed [24,26,28–30]. The behaviour of
livestock handlers and their attitude towards the animals in their care has been shown to
directly influence the animals’ level of fear, which in turn affects the behaviour of the an-
imal around humans [28,29]. Evidence of the influence of negative associations with hu-
man handlers in this sector has guided changes to husbandry and handling procedures,
and has generated recommendations for more positive reinforcement-based training, sys-
tematic desensitization to standard equipment, and active efforts to generate positive
HAIs [31–33].
Unlike the production animal sector, stakeholders in the zoo sector and the small
companion animal sector tend to focus more on the individual animal, rather than the
herd or flock. Changes implemented in these sectors are focused on generating willing-
ness, cooperation, voluntary participation, and a lack of fear and stress in animals during
Animals 2022, 12, 2907 3 of 17
HAIs and HVPs. Within the zoo sector, there is now a strong focus on using training to
reduce fear and stress during HAIs and HVPs. Systematic desensitization protocols and
positive reinforcement-based training have been adopted within zoos as a humane and
effective strategy to facilitate HVPs without the need for sedation or restraint [27,34–39].
The need to reduce fear and stress for small animals during veterinary visits is be-
coming increasingly well-recognized [40–43]. In many practices, clinic layout, staff inter-
actions, and the handling techniques used are focused on delivering a minimal-stress ex-
perience [40,41,43]. Clients are encouraged to routinely visit the clinic with their dog,
purely for the purpose of desensitization and generating positive conditioned emotional
responses (CERs) to the environment and the staff [42,43]. It is also suggested that owners
and caregivers train towards developing positive CERs to such elements as the transport
crate and traveling in a vehicle, so as to reduce the likelihood of the animal arriving at the
clinic already stressed and in a heightened state of arousal [40]. The overall goal of these
strategies is a less stressed and more cooperative animal during veterinary visits, thus,
reducing the likelihood of human injury resulting from defensive aggression, and posi-
tively influencing the animal’s behaviour during future veterinary interventions [44].
3. An Overview of Relevant Horse Traits and Behaviour
Horses are large animals with quick reactions. They are neophobic and claustropho-
bic, and remain acutely aware of their surroundings [22,45–48]; these traits can have a
significant impact when being asked to participate in a HAI or HVP for which they have
not been adequately prepared.
As a prey species, horses rely on flight where possible as a primary method of sur-
vival. When faced with novel situations, physical or psychological pressure, or real or
perceived restraint, fear responses will typically be activated. The observable responses
may be active, manifesting as avoidance or escape behaviours, or defence behaviours
(threat or attack); or passive, manifesting as immobility (freezing) or displacement behav-
iours. The behaviours exhibited are influenced by an individuals coping strategy; the
coping style may be either more proactive or more reactive and will remain constant
across time and contexts [49]. Attempts to exert control over a situation through the per-
formance of defensive behaviours, or efforts to flee from a stressor, are characteristic of a
more proactive strategy, whereas reduced responsiveness, emotional blunting and freez-
ing are characteristic of a more reactive strategy [49,50].
When compared to a horse displaying volatile behavioural responses, a horse dis-
playing reduced behaviours during a HVP may seem preferential; however, this is not
always the case. Despite the reduced behavioural response, reactive coping styles are
linked with a more pronounced physiological response to stress [49,50]. Hence, even
when a horse appears calm and compliant, there may still be concerns for the horse’s emo-
tional well-being [14,49,51]. It should also be remembered that horses displaying behav-
iours associated with reactive coping strategies may remain immobile until they reach a
threshold, and then may suddenly react in a large and volatile way [50]. This sudden per-
formance of volatile behaviours from a horse that previously appeared calm and compli-
ant is sometimes misinterpreted as a horse being ‘unpredictable’ [50].
The responses that are most dangerous to humans occur when a horse feels the need
to avoid, escape, or defend itself from perceived threat. The specific behaviours that may
result in injury to the human handler in these scenarios include biting, kicking, striking,
rearing, running/trampling/barging, or moving in a way that crushes the human between
the horse and another object. These behaviours may be exhibited immediately at the com-
mencement of a HAI or HVP, or the horse may display these behaviours at some point
during the HAI or HVP as a result of the prolonged exposure to a stressor or the cumula-
tive effect of being exposed to multiple different stressors over a period of time [50,52].
Actions that are undertaken by humans during a HAI or HVP can significantly im-
pact a horse’s behaviour during future HAIs and HVPs [53]. Continuing to expose the
horse to a perceived aversive stimulus past that individual’s reaction threshold;
Animals 2022, 12, 2907 4 of 17
provoking a fear response; reinforcement of an undesirable behaviour; poorly timed rein-
forcement; and/or the use of punishment, particularly noncontingent punishment, can all
play a role in creating unwanted responses in future HAI and HVPs [52–55].
It is important to remember though that many of the behaviours that pose safety con-
cerns to humans during a HAI or HVP are entirely natural behaviours in the horse [56].
4. HVPs with Horses and Traditional Methods for Achieving Compliance
Common HVPs identified for their potential to induce fear or stress in the horse in-
clude clipping, farriery, loading onto transport vehicles, dentistry, injections, oral pasting,
administering eye medications, treating superficial wounds, and veterinary examinations
and procedures.
Horses can respond during a HVP with undesirable and potentially dangerous be-
haviours. This response may be due to confusion, conflict, pain, fear, fear of pain, or may
be the result of previously reinforced behaviours [20,47,49,57,58].
Potentially dangerous behavioural responses may be initiated by the approach from
an unfamiliar person, human contact, the presence of unfamiliar equipment/objects, loud
or unfamiliar sounds, intense or unfamiliar odours, unfamiliar tactile sensations, confine-
ment/restraint, a reduction in perceived options for escape, lack of the presence of familiar
conspecifics, unpleasant or painful sensations, or any stimulus for which a negative CER
has previously been linked [20,50,52,54,59–61]. If the procedure is being undertaken at a
clinic or at a location remote from the horse’s usual environment, then there are additional
aspects that may increase fear or stress, including the need to travel, being in an unfamiliar
space, the presence of unfamiliar terrain/surfaces/structures, and a potentially busy envi-
ronment in terms of human and animal traffic, vehicular movements, and noise.
Pain may occur as an aspect of the HVP itself, may be the result of the behaviours the
horse undertakes in response to the HVP, or the pain may be inflicted by the human as a
response to the horse’s behaviour. Pain is a recognised cause of potentially dangerous
behaviours [58,62–64].
4.1. Traditional Handling, Handler Beliefs, and Influence of Human Emotions
Frequently, the strategies employed by owners, trainers, caregivers, and horse-care
professionals when undertaking HVPs, are heavily focused on “getting the job done” [63].
Approaching a HVP with the primary goal of rapidly completing the task may limit the
consideration that is being given to the horse’s mental well-being, or the impact this en-
counter may have on that horse’s behaviour in future HAIs or HVPs.
Requiring a horse to perform the behaviours the human desires with limited choice,
and often at the threat of an aversive stimulus being applied or intensified if compliance
is not achieved, is not specific to undertaking HVPs; this is the cultural norm within the
horse handling and training sector [19,22,23,54,65,66].
Human injury is common when handling horses [67–69]. Horse trainers, riders, han-
dlers, coaches, farriers, veterinarians, transporters, and other professionals in the equine
sector frequently sustain injuries, and in contrast to other high-risk occupations, there has
been no significant reduction in rates of injury or death over the past decades [69]. To date,
much of the focus for reducing injuries when handling horses has been on the increased
use of personal protective equipment [69]; however, even though helmet use has in-
creased, head injury rates remain high [70]. In other high-risk occupations, addressing the
root cause of the incidents that result in injuries and fatalities is considered more beneficial
than focusing solely on the increased use of protective equipment [69]. In the horse indus-
try, this would equate to looking for strategies to reduce the occurrence of potentially
dangerous horse behaviours.
Whilst handling horses during HVPs, handlers may experience frustration, anxiety
and fear; this heightened human arousal and emotion can be perceived by the horse, and
increases the likelihood that the horse will react in a negative manner [71,72].
Animals 2022, 12, 2907 5 of 17
Professional providers may also perceive that it is the owner’s responsibility, and not
theirs, to train the horse for these interactions [57]; this belief may then contribute to their
feelings of frustration. Horse-care professionals likely feel the pressure of time con-
straints—the next appointment may be scheduled soon, there is a financial cost to “wast-
ing” time, there can be psychological pressure from having their peers or clients watching
the interaction, and there can be an expectation from many owners that these profession-
als “should” be able to manage the horse regardless of its behaviour [57].
Human emotions of fear and frustration can directly lead to the application of aver-
sive stimuli during HVPs [73]—in many instances, punishing behaviours that are natural
and predictable responses from the horse.
Although punishment is quite common in the horse sector, it is not recommended;
punishment not only presents a welfare concern, but frequently leads to horses perform-
ing dangerous behaviours in an attempt to escape or defend themselves against the aver-
sive stimulus [23,53,54,73].
In instances where the owner/trainer/caregiver/horse-care professional is motivated
to provide a more positive experience for the horse during a HAI or HVP, it can be chal-
lenging, as behavioural signs of equine stress, pain, and negative emotional states are
poorly recognized by many horse handlers [9,14,15,74]. Hence, even though the human
may be attempting to consider the horse’s emotional state more fully, they still may not
be able to accurately recognise that the horse is fearful or stressed.
4.2. Restraint during HVPs
Restraint of horses for HVPs is common, with a range of tools and techniques being
routinely used and described [21,53,63,75,76]. Physical restraint can be as mild as the use
of a head halter and lead, but can also include physically restricting movement through
confinement in a crush/chute, hobbling, or holding up a leg [10,21,53].
Inducing pain when the horse attempts to move is another common strategy for
achieving stillness and compliance. Some of the tools used to induce stillness in this way,
such as lip chains and lip ropes, are capable of inflicting serious injury to the horse
[10,63,76]. Nose, ear, and neck skin twitching is also common [53]. The exact reason
twitching is effective is unclear, with some evidence suggesting that initially there may be
a calming and potentially analgesic effect from a nose twitch [53,77,78], whereas the ear
twitch appears to be more likely to induce stillness due to pain or fear [78].
There are welfare concerns with regard to using any physical restraint that blocks all
movement, or the application of restraint techniques that result in pain if the horse at-
tempts to move [53,73]. The issues of concern are that the horse has no choice about their
participation in the procedure, the ability to perform natural flight behaviours is removed,
and the horse may still be experiencing fear, stress, and potentially pain but with no op-
tion for relief. These type of extreme restraint procedures allow the ongoing application
of noxious stimuli at a level and duration that is unacceptable from a horse-welfare per-
spective and may contribute to generating associations that will result in worsening be-
haviour in future HAIs and HVPs [53].
Although strategies that involve training are recommended over reliance on restraint
for HVPs [53,73], the application of physical restraint is still very common in the horse
industry, with knowledge of restraint techniques remaining a key component in the train-
ing of equine veterinarians and other horse-care professionals [53,63,76].
One of the primary reasons restraint is still common when handling horses is be-
cause, unlike many other large and potentially dangerous animals, horses are mostly han-
dled in free contact, rather than protected contact scenarios. This exposes the human han-
dlers and horse-care professionals to significant risk of injury if a horse reacts in a rapid
or volatile manner at any time during an HVP. For this reason, it is likely that humane
restraint will remain in use for specific situations, such as when a horse requires urgent
veterinary treatment, but is in pain or is too fearful to comply.
Animals 2022, 12, 2907 6 of 17
Chemical restraint is another commonly used option for reducing the risks associated
with dangerous behaviours occurring during a HVP [21]. The use of these agents is briefly
discussed in the section of this review dedicated to veterinarians.
5. Moving Forward to Improve Horse Experiences during Husbandry and
Veterinary Procedures
Often, the traditional approach to handling and husbandry with horses is considered
‘effective’ as it achieves the human’s goal of completing the HVP. However, when consid-
ering the more modern approach of including the impact of these techniques on the horse,
then there are two distinct progressions away from these traditional approaches.
1. Option 1. In this option, the primary focus remains on “getting the job done” at the
scheduled time. However, significant consideration is given to the impact of the job
on the horse. This may involve providing a quiet, uncluttered environment, and al-
lowing the horse time to become familiar with the surroundings, the personnel, and
the equipment prior to commencing [50,73]. This approach may also require the al-
location of a brief amount of time to implement a simple behaviour modification pro-
gramme, utilizing a mixture of negative reinforcement, positive reinforcement,
and/or classical counter conditioning [57,73]. Depending on the individual horse and
the intensity of the undesirable behaviour, when well-applied, these strategies may
alter the horse’s emotional state and behavioural responses enough to allow the pro-
cedure to be completed at the scheduled time. The British Equine Veterinary Associ-
ation has made available a series of short videos demonstrating the use of reinforce-
ment-based techniques for training horses for HVPs [79]. An essential aspect to com-
pleting a HVP using this approach is to accurately monitor arousal levels throughout
the entire HVP, ensuring the horse is not placed in a position where it feels the need
to escape or defend itself. Taking breaks as needed, using staff who are skilled in low-
stress handling, and providing food distractions and calming tactile contact are all
beneficial to achieving the end goal of this approach [50,57,80]. To ensure human
safety when undertaking a HVP using this approach, some type of physical or chem-
ical restraint may still be necessary in specific cases, but the choice of restraint is im-
pacted by a desire to minimise fear and stress. This type of approach addresses many
welfare concerns, whilst also creating HAIs and HVPs that result in a horse which
does not exhibit worsening behaviour in future interactions.
2. Option 2. In this option, the horse participates in a voluntary capacity. The priority is
the horse’s emotions and its perceived control (agency) during the HAI/HVP. Train-
ing is undertaken prior to the HVP to establish consent cues. This allows the horse to
indicate its consent to commence the procedure; at any time the horse withdraws
consent, the procedure is paused. When working with animals within this approach,
it is accepted that procedures may initially take longer, and that animals may choose
not to participate at that time [25], hence, rescheduling a HVP may be necessary.
Honouring the animal’s choice is considered a representation of improved welfare
[25]. Delaying all non-urgent HVPs until adequate training has been undertaken is
also an important strategy within this approach [81]. This less human-centred ap-
proach is now common when undertaking HVPs within zoo settings, especially
when working with animals in protected contact; however, it is less common in the
horse industry (refer to
tons-and-horse-training accessed on 7 October 2022, for a practical example of using
consent cues with a horse). Using this approach for undertaking HVPs requires ex-
tensive training to be undertaken with the animal before the HVP is scheduled. It
also requires that the horse’s choice is honoured during the HVP, and this needs all
human participants to have a shared commitment to the same end goal. One im-
portant point to highlight here is that offering the animal choice does not result in
animals consistently choosing not to participate, as many people imagine would
Animals 2022, 12, 2907 7 of 17
occur. Rather, the animals typically consistently consent even to somewhat invasive
and painful procedures, and only withdraw consent at times when they feel appre-
hensive, fearful, or stressed. The training components required for success with this
approach focus on ensuring that the animal can predict what is about to occur, is
familiar and comfortable with the process/equipment, and has an understanding on
what behaviour constitutes consent.
Regardless of which approach is taken, any effort to reduce stress, fear, and anxiety
is clearly beneficial for the horse’s emotional well-being. There is also an extremely valu-
able sequela—positively impacting the horse’s emotional experience during the HVP di-
rectly reduces the likelihood of injury to the horse and the humans, not only in this HVP,
but also in subsequent HAIs and HVPs. The improved safety is achieved because the
horse does not feel threatened or trapped, and hence, does not need to perform potentially
dangerous defence and escape behaviours. A positive experience during the current HVP
will also result in the horse being more relaxed the next time it recognises a similar HVP
is going to occur, and again, this will result in improved safety for all parties.
5.1. Practical Implementation
When the goal is for the horse to participate in the HVP in a voluntary capacity, then
extensive training prior to the HVP will be necessary. This requires the owner/han-
dler/trainer/caregiver to have an understanding of how to undertake this training and the
desire to dedicate the time and effort required to complete this task.
However, even when this prior training has not occurred, there are still a myriad of
strategies that can be implemented immediately before and during an HVP that can sig-
nificantly improve the experience for the horse. This is discussed in further detail in the
sub-section titled “Management and Training”.
When assessing the benefits of working toward voluntary participation in HVPs and
the advantages of providing agency for the horse, valuable information can be sourced
from several sectors including zoological institutions, small animal veterinary practice,
and paediatric medicine [41]. These sectors have all made substantial changes in recent
decades to more fully embrace the need to reduce fear, stress, and anxiety during health
care procedures [37,40,82–87]. This includes changes to improve patient agency, provide
the patient with predictability where possible, provision of appropriate positive distrac-
tions during procedures, and having a familiar caregiver present in a supporting role dur-
ing the procedure [37,44,82,84,85,88–91].
In developing strategies to improve the horse’s experience during a HVP, it is criti-
cally important to remain aware of human safety and the practicalities surrounding the
implementation of these protocols. The approach taken at the time of the HVP will be
dependent on the prior training the horse has received, the horse’s observable behaviour
before and during the HVP, the facilities available, the skill level of the personnel in-
volved, and owner preferences.
5.1.1. Management and Training
Management and training work synergistically to modify behaviour. Training is
aimed at directly influencing the horse’s future behaviour in a given circumstance through
learning. Some training may be able to be undertaken at the time of the HVP. This would
involve taking some time to reinforce desired behaviours such as standing still or yielding
to head-halter pressure. Again, regardless of whether the goal is simply minimising fear
and stress, or the goal is honouring the horse’s choice, the best overall outcomes will be
achieved if some foundation training is undertaken separately and ahead of time.
Management, however, is utilised to reduce the likelihood of undesirable behaviours
occurring in the moment. Management strategies are essential in all scenarios and serve
to improve the animal’s experience during a HVP by reducing stress and negative emo-
tions. Management is also beneficial as it reduces the rehearsal of undesirable behaviours
Animals 2022, 12, 2907 8 of 17
which can indirectly influence future behaviour by preventing unwanted behaviours de-
veloping into habits. Management strategies include any components that set the stage
for a better outcome. Some examples include:
Undertaking the HVP in a spacious, quiet environment and minimising the move-
ment of people and other horses through the area [50,73].
Ensuring personnel are competent handlers with good skills for interpreting horse
behaviour [20,50].
Considering the order of activities. For example, avoiding weighing the horse as the
first activity if the horse is showing indicators that they are fearful or stressed about
the process of getting onto the scales [50].
Pausing the HVP before arousal has escalated past the response threshold. Taking a
well-timed break in this way allows arousal to lower before continuing [81].
Feeding or using food-based licking products during the HVP if possible. Such a
strategy can help to keep arousal/agitation levels lower and can act as a positive dis-
traction [57,80,81].
Utilising touch that is associated with a positive CER such as wither scratching or
rubbing of the eyes and face. These kinds of touch have been shown to be beneficial
for improving relaxation during a HVP [57,80].
In some cases, effective management may include the use of appropriate restraint
strategies, and/or the use of medication. Although management strategies are an excellent
contribution towards improving the horse’s experience during an HVP, attaining the goal
of having a horse participate in a HVP in a calm and cooperative manner is best achieved
through the addition of training.
Animal training in general is focused on reinforcing desirable behaviours or punish-
ing undesirable behaviours.
Reinforcement-based training is considered preferable to punishment in many ani-
mal training sectors as it focuses on assisting the animal to learn what behaviours are de-
sirable in a given situation, and avoids the many negative outcomes that can result from
a punishment-based approach [47,54,57]. Increasing the frequency of desirable behaviours
can be achieved through positive reinforcement, where a pleasant stimulus is added after
the desired behaviour, or negative reinforcement, where an unpleasant stimulus is re-
moved immediately after the desired behaviour [47].
Negative reinforcement is common in the horse sector [47,92], for example, maintain-
ing pressure on a head halter and then immediately relaxing the contact when the horse
yields to the pressure. Negative reinforcement is extremely effective for creating desired
behaviours, such as the behaviours that are needed for a horse to comply with the require-
ments of an HVP, and for behaviour modification via reinforcement of alternative behav-
iours to replace undesirable behaviours. However, the use of negative reinforcement tech-
niques can initially increase stress responses in the horse, which may result in increased
risk to human safety if not well managed [93]. Another significant problem that can arise
when using negative reinforcement to achieve compliance during an HVP is that the horse
is often fearful of performing the desired behaviour, due to environmental factors or prior
learning. This fear may underlie the animal’s initial resistance to comply with the han-
dler’s request. Using an aversive stimulus to motivate the horse to comply in order to
remove that aversive presents the animal with a conflicting situation in which it must
choose between escape or avoidance of two unpleasant sets of stimuli—the fear-provok-
ing behavioural request, or the aversive being applied by the handler in order to bring
about compliance with that request. Furthermore, as a result of the horse not complying
with the human’s wishes, the aversive stimulus being utilised is frequently intensified,
and may reach intensity levels that are inappropriate from a welfare perspective [54].
Positive reinforcement-based training is less common in the horse industry than in
many training sectors, but has experienced a dramatic rise in popularity in recent years
[47,94]. One of the significant benefits of positive reinforcement is that it has the potential
Animals 2022, 12, 2907 9 of 17
to improve the horse’s feelings about humans and provides positive HAIs [95–98]. Much
of the current evidence in horses suggests that positive reinforcement is not superior to
negative reinforcement in terms of achieving desired behaviours faster or more reliably
[99–101]. Indeed, in some circumstances, it may be that behaviours are more reliable when
trained using negative reinforcement; this is because a horse that is experiencing fear or
stress may still act to avoid an aversive stimulus, where they may be less likely to perform
behaviours in order to access a positive reward [47,101]. However, there are potential ben-
efits associated with the use of well-applied positive reinforcement over negative rein-
forcement; these include lower arousal levels, less fear, less performance of avoidance be-
haviours, greater performance of investigative behaviours, increased human safety, and
the provision of a positive HAI, thus, potentially contributing to overall better welfare
[95,97–100,102,103]. Commonly cited concerns over the risk of increased nipping of hands
or biting of clothes when using positive reinforcement-based approaches appear un-
founded [104].
Positive reinforcement-based training has proven to be successful for generating re-
liable, voluntary, cooperative participation in HVPs in many settings and across a wide
variety of species [27,34,35,38,105–108]. This success has not been limited to mammals, but
also includes reptilian species [109,110], avian species [108,111] and fish [37,112].
Studies using positive reinforcement to train horses to cooperatively participate in
HVPs are limited in the academic literature [66,92,113–115]. Nonetheless, evidence from
a wide range of other species including prey species and ungulates would suggest that
this approach would be highly effective in horses, and anecdotally, it is already routine
practice for some horse trainers and behaviour professionals [115]. The reinforcer is typi-
cally food, however, tactile stimulation such as wither scratching has also been used
[57,94,116–118]. Studies comparing horse preferences between food and human contact
indicate food is preferable in most instances, regardless of the horse’s previous training
history [116,117], but tactile contact may be a more appropriate reinforcer in some circum-
stances, such as when working with foals [118].
Many training programs in other species that focus on cooperative participation in
HVPs utilise positive reinforcement to produce stationing and targeting behaviours
[34,105,106,109]. Stationing reinforces the behaviour of remaining in contact with a “sta-
tion”, often a slightly raised platform designed for either two feet or four feet. When vol-
untary participation is a goal of the care protocol, then, once trained, making contact with
the station is used as an indicator of consent to undertake the HVP. If the animal moves
away from the station, then this is read as the animal removing consent, and the procedure
is stopped until the animal feels comfortable enough to again offer consent to continue.
Even once the initial training is complete, the intermittent delivery of a primary reinforcer
continues whilst the animal remains on the station, to ensure the behaviour remains reli-
“Targeting” reinforces the behaviour of choosing to make contact with a target, such
as a hand, the end of a stick, or an object mounted on a wall. The contact can be made by
the animal’s nose, but also by other parts of the body, such as a shoulder or hip [37]. Train-
ing such behaviour can be useful for moving an animal from place to place, or for posi-
tioning the animal. For example, a shoulder target can be used to ask the animal to move
only its shoulder in a particular direction in order to make contact with a person’s hand,
or a hip target can be used to begin to ask for voluntary compliance with an injection
procedure. Targeting that involves the upper and lower lip and jaw can also be used in
conjunction with other cues to shape an open mouth behaviour. Targeting can be very
useful for cueing horses to voluntarily move their head, shoulders, or quarters to facilitate
aspects of an HVP. As targeting is trained using positive reinforcement, the cued move-
ment is driven by a desire to access reward, as opposed to being motivated by a desire to
avoid an aversive (as would occur if the horse was responding to a cue trained via nega-
tive reinforcement). Published studies describing target training in horses are still ex-
tremely limited at this time [59,66,92,114,115,118,119].
Animals 2022, 12, 2907 10 of 17
Many horses initially respond to novel objects, sounds, and smells with varying in-
tensities of avoidance or escape behaviours [47,50,120]. The same behavioural response
will occur if the stimulus has previously been paired with a negative experience [50,121].
Any equipment used in an HVP may elicit these responses. Through graduated exposure
alone, or through the use of systematic desensitization and counter-conditioning proto-
cols, these responses can be reduced and eventually eliminated [53,55]. Undertaking ef-
fective desensitization protocols requires a thorough understanding of horse behaviour
and keen observation skills [121]. During the training process, the goal is for the fear-
evoking stimulus to be incrementally presented but reduced/removed while the horse is
calm and prior to the horse feeling the need to undertake substantial behaviours associ-
ated with avoidance, escape, or defence [47]. These larger unwanted behaviours typically
occur when subtle pre-cursor behaviours fail to be detected by the human [14,50], result-
ing in the handler continuing to increase the intensity of the stimulus at a time when re-
ducing or removing the stimulus is more appropriate.
When implementing a force-free approach to training, the skill lies in ensuring that
gradual desensitization occurs without the horse experiencing fear or stress during the
protocol. This approach also assures the horse that they have control over the interaction,
thus, removing the need for a horse to panic, attempt to escape, or utilise aggression to
feel safe. In turn, this improves safety for the horse, as well as the human/s involved in
the interaction.
5.1.2. Additional Considerations for Veterinary Practices and Veterinary Professionals
Equine veterinarians are frequently exposed to horses displaying potentially danger-
ous behaviours. In one survey, 95% of veterinarians reported working with a ‘difficult’
horse on at least a monthly basis [21].
Due to undesirable horse behaviour, risk of injury is high in the equine veterinary
profession, with many injuries involving the head, and some incidents being fatal
[21,53,67,79,122–125]. In one survey of veterinarians, 80% of respondents had received a
work injury from a horse in the past 5 years [21]. Another study indicated that equine
veterinarians can expect to sustain one significant work-related injury for every 3 years
and 9 months spent in practice [126]; over a third of the injuries reported in this study
required hospital admission and many of the most significant injuries reported occurred
whilst undertaking common procedures. These injury rates are higher than other civilian
occupations and appear to occur throughout a veterinarian’s working life, indicating that
time in practice alone does not prevent injuries. Training to improve the understanding
of learning theory and to increase a veterinarian’s ability to recognize subtle behavioural
indicators of arousal and affective state may be highly beneficial in avoiding situations
that may lead to human injury [15,21,91]. The high rates of injury within the veterinary
profession would suggest that any changes that could reduce the frequency and severity
of injuries warrant further consideration.
Beyond reducing human injury rates, improving animal welfare is likely to also be a
driver for change to traditional approaches during HVPs. The increased use of approaches
that minimise fear and stress will likely be given greater consideration as more awareness
develops regarding the potential for iatrogenic behavioural injury due to providing vet-
erinary care to a horse that is experiencing fear, anxiety, and stress during the interaction
[41]. Even a single fear-inducing interaction can generate a conditioned fear response that
may negatively impact the horse’s behaviour during future handing and HVPs [50]. The
importance of this phenomenon should not be dismissed, as choices made by veterinary
personnel during every interaction have the potential to increase the risk of injury to per-
sonnel in future HAIs and HVPs [53]. For long-term clients, the benefit of providing low-
stress HVPs include easier and safer interactions during future appointments. This not
only has the potential to improve the client-veterinarian relationship, but also to contrib-
ute to the ongoing safety of clinic personnel.
Animals 2022, 12, 2907 11 of 17
Whilst many equine veterinarians are very good at identifying behaviours associated
with a proactive coping mechanism, some personnel may be inaccurate at identifying be-
haviours associated with a reactive coping style [50]. This may lead to human injury as
the behaviours performed may be erroneously identified as behavioural evidence of a
horse who is calm or relaxed [14,50]. To provide the best overall care for patients, and to
improve human safety, it is important that all veterinary personnel are able to accurately
identify the behavioural indicators of fear and stress [14,50,127]. The larger avoidance,
escape, and defensive behaviours are obvious, but a range of less volatile behaviours may
be performed prior to these larger responses; these include increased muscle tension, tri-
angulated or wide eyes, eye wrinkles, tail swishing, elimination, fidgeting, scratching,
ears pulled back, vigilance, increased tension in the face/jaw/mouth, elongation of the up-
per lip, dilated nostrils, raised head, head tossing, foot stomping, pawing, mouthing ob-
jects, snorting, trembling, jerky movement, vocalisation, stillness with fixed gaze, unre-
sponsive to touch, resistance to human cues, rigid stance with fixed ear position, perfor-
mance of abnormal repetitive behaviours, and attempts to reposition away from the
stressor [48,50,52,57,127].
Beyond monitoring and managing a horse’s emotional state, appropriately managing
physical pain remains an essential aspect of providing quality veterinary care. Pain may
be an aspect of the reason for veterinary intervention, or pain may occur due to the pro-
cedure itself. Pain is a recognised cause of potentially dangerous behaviours during a HVP
[58,62–64]. Implementing strategies to reduce pain, including administering pain-reliev-
ing agents when required, will improve the horse’s experience during the HVP, in turn
reducing behaviours that occur in response to pain, ultimately improving personnel
Even when consideration is given to providing low-stress environments and appro-
priate handling, it may not reduce fear and anxiety enough in some instances to complete
a procedure in a manner that is safe, and in a way where the horse is not exposed to a
negative experience. In these cases, behavioural medications are beneficial [63,128,129].
Whilst any type of sedation may reduce potentially dangerous behaviours, and
hence, improve human safety, thoughtful selection of the sedating agent is critical for ad-
dressing the horse-welfare aspect [130]. Using agents for chemical restraint during poten-
tially fear-inducing procedures without ensuring the agent is anxiolytic has the potential
to cause further fear, stress, and aversive learning [128].
An agent that remains common in the equine veterinary sector requires mention here.
Traditionally, acepromazine was considered useful for reducing apprehension and dis-
tress in animals. However, in recent years, it has been highlighted that this agent simply
blunts behaviours and has no anxiolytic effect [40,131,132]. Instead of reducing anxiety, it
has been suggested that acepromazine can lead to further psychological trauma as the
animal may remain fearful and/or anxious but be unable to make sense of the experience
cognitively, and/or is less capable of performing the behavioural response they would
otherwise perform if unmedicated [40]. Acepromazine is no longer recommended in the
treatment or management of anxious or aggressive animals in a number of other species
[40,131,132], and for welfare reasons, the use of acepromazine as a stand-alone agent for
managing horse behaviour during a HVP is questionable.
Although many participants in the horse sector consider physical restraint to be a
normal aspect of horse management, it should no longer be assumed that all equine clients
are comfortable with the use of restraint that entirely blocks the horse’s movement, or the
application of aversive stimuli that may cause pain or induce fear. Many clients struggled
with traditional handling and restraint protocols in small animal practice and are now
relieved to be able to find clinics that consider the emotional experience of the animal, and
the ramifications of the HVP on future behaviour [40,133,134]. Horse owners too have
suggested that some veterinarians create or exacerbate behavioural aversions to HVPs
through their handling and management [73], and many suggest that they are looking for
veterinarians to demonstrate more welfare-oriented approaches when handling horses
Animals 2022, 12, 2907 12 of 17
[135]. This does not directly indicate though that these same clients have the skills or
knowledge to undertake the training required to improve their horse’s experience during
these HVPs. Importantly, the undesirable behaviours may not be limited to veterinary
visits—many owners struggle with their horse’s behaviour at home, and may seek out
behavioural advice from their veterinarian. One study reported that over 77% of respond-
ent veterinarians considered owner complaints of “difficult” or “uncooperative” horses
to be common (57.1%) or extremely common (20.4%) [130].
Where clients are interested in longer-term solutions to address their horses undesir-
able behaviours, but do not have the time or knowledge required to undertake the training
themselves, clinics could consider offering a fee-paying service for undertaking the train-
ing if suitably qualified staff are available [73]. Another option is to refer owners/caregiv-
ers on to a suitably experienced equine behaviour professional for assistance with training
the new behaviours, or the modification of existing challenging behaviours [73,81,136].
For the owners who are committed to pursuing voluntary participation in HVPs and
have spent considerable time building foundation behaviours and honouring their horse’s
consent cues, it is necessary to locate a veterinarian who is willing and capable of provid-
ing veterinary care using this approach. Anecdotally, owners in this position are prepared
to pay a premium to have access to this service, yet finding suitable clinics/veterinarians
can be difficult in some regions. This highlights a gap in the industry that can only be
filled by veterinarians trained in the application of this approach.
Providing non-urgent veterinary care to a fearful, anxious, or stressed animal can
create a challenging ethical dilemma for veterinarians [137]. The horse is likely to suffer
emotionally, and the human personnel involved may be at an increased risk of injury;
however, the client may not want to be inconvenienced by re-scheduling, and/or they may
be unwilling or incapable of undertaking the training the horse requires in order to safely
cooperate during the HVP. To prevent veterinarians being placed in a position where their
safety is at risk, where they feel their team’s safety is at risk, or they feel it is unnecessary
or inappropriate from a horse-welfare perspective to undertake a non-urgent HVP with a
horse before further training has been undertaken, it can be beneficial for veterinary prac-
tices to actively develop policies and guidelines about equine care as it pertains to non-
urgent HVPs.
There is no doubt that the safety of veterinarians and horse-care professionals must
remain paramount when undertaking HVPs on horses. One of the most effective ways to
achieve this is to aim towards horses being trained to safely participate in common HVPs.
6. Conclusions
The potential impact of HAIs or HVPs from the perspective of the emotional experi-
ence of the horse at the time, the potential for long-term behavioural injury, and the impact
on that horse’s future emotional experience and behaviour in similar scenarios, should
always be given serious consideration.
Welfare needs to be at the forefront of every interaction with a horse, including each
HVP. Continuing to use methods that focus on just “getting the job done” without con-
sidering the horse’s emotional state and well-being are no longer appropriate in today’s
Improving the horse’s experience during a HVP can be achieved through human ed-
ucation, thoughtful planning, active welfare-oriented management, and effective horse-
training protocols. This approach improves horse welfare, whilst also reducing the risk of
injury to owners, trainers, handlers, and horse-care professionals.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, S.L.C., B.W.S. and P.C.M.; methodology, S.L.C.; writ-
ing—original draft preparation, S.L.C., B.W.S. and P.C.M.; writing—review and editing, S.L.C.,
B.W.S. and P.C.M.; supervision, B.W.S. and P.C.M. All authors have read and agreed to the pub-
lished version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Animals 2022, 12, 2907 13 of 17
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
1. Rioja-Lang, F.C.; Connor, M.; Bacon, H.; Dwyer, C.M. Determining a welfare prioritization for horses using a delphi method.
Animals 2020, 10, 647.
2. Rollin, B.E. Equine welfare and ethics. In Equine Welfare; McIlwraith, C.W., Rollin, B.E., Eds.; Wiley-Blackwell: Ames, Iowa,
2011; pp. 3–21.
3. Mendonça, T.; Bienboire-Frosini, C.; Kowalczyk, I.; Leclercq, J.; Arroub, S.; Pageat, P. Equine activities influence horses’
responses to different stimuli: Could this have an impact on equine welfare? Animals 2019, 9, 290.
4. McLean, A.N.; McGreevy, P.D. Horse-training techniques that may defy the principles of learning theory and compromise
welfare. J. Veter. Behav. 2010, 5, 187–195.
5. Lofgren, E.A.; Rice, B.M.G.; Brady, C.M. Exploring perceptions of equine welfare scenarios using a positive approach. J. Appl.
Anim. Welf. Sci. 2022, 25, 54–61.
6. Lofgren, E.A.; Tucker, M.A.; Rice, B.; Voigt, M.A.; Brady, C.M. Does discipline matter? An analysis of equine welfare perceptions
and beliefs in the context of horse show participation. J. Equine Veter. Sci. 2017, 52, 115.
7. McGreevy, P.D.; McLean, A.N. Roles of learning theory and ethology in equitation. J. Veter. Behav. 2007, 2, 108–118.
8. Hausberger, M.; Lesimple, C.; Henry, S. Detecting welfare in a non-verbal species: Social/cultural biases and difficulties in horse
welfare assessment. Animals 2021, 11, 2249,
9. Horseman, S.; Mullan, S.; Barr, A.; Knowles, T.; Buller, H.; Whay, H. Horses in Our Hands. 2016. Available online: (accessed on 4 October 2022).
10. McGreevy, P.; Berger, J.; De Brauwere, N.; Doherty, O.; Harrison, A.; Fiedler, J.; Jones, C.; McDonnell, S.; McLean, A.;
Nakonechny, L.; et al. Using the five domains model to assess the adverse impacts of husbandry, veterinary, and equitation
interventions on horse welfare. Animals 2018, 8, 41.
11. Visser, E.K.; Van Wijk-Jansen, E.E.C. Diversity in horse enthusiasts with respect to horse welfare: An explorative study. J. Veter.
Behav. 2012, 7, 295–304.
12. Kydd, E.; Padalino, B.; Henshall, C.; McGreevy, P. An analysis of equine round pen training videos posted online: Differences
between amateur and professional trainers. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0184851.
13. Dyson, S.; Berger, J.; Ellis, A.D.; Mullard, J. Development of an ethogram for a pain scoring system in ridden horses and its
application to determine the presence of musculoskeletal pain. J. Veter. Behav. 2018, 23, 47–57.
14. Bell, C.; Rogers, S.; Taylor, J.; Busby, D. Improving the recognition of equine affective states. Animals 2019, 9, 1124,
15. Gronqvist, G.; Rogers, C.; Gee, E.; Martinez, A.; Bolwell, C. Veterinary and equine science students’ interpretation of horse
behaviour. Animals 2017, 7, 63.
16. Wires, C.; Hoffman, R.; Talbert, A.; Brady, C.; O'Haire, M.; Croney, C. 111  ability to interpret and apply animal behavior and
welfare terminology by adults within the horse industry. J. Equine Veter. Sci. 2021, 100, 103574,
17. Bornmann, T.; Randle, H.; Williams, J. Investigating equestrians’ perceptions of horse happiness: An exploratory study. J. Equine
Veter. Sci. 2021, 104, 103697–103697.
18. Warren-Smith, A.K.; McGreevy, P.D. Equestrian coaches’ understanding and application of learning theory in horse training.
Anthrozoös 2008, 21, 153–162.
19. Hockenhull, J.; Creighton, E. Training horses: Positive reinforcement, positive punishment, and ridden behavior problems. J.
Veter. Behav. 2013, 8, 245–252.
20. Preshaw, L.; Kirton, R.; Randle, H. Application of learning theory in horse rescues in england and wales. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci.
2017, 190, 82–89.
21. Pearson, G.; Reardon, R.; Keen, J.; Waran, N. Difficult horses—Prevalence, approaches to management of and understanding
of how they develop by equine veterinarians. Equine Veter. Educ. 2021, 33, 522–530.
22. McGreevy, P.; McLean, A.; McGreevy, P.D.; McLean, A.N. Fight and flight responses and manifestations. In Equitation Science;
John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated: Hoboken, UK, 2010; pp. 225–257.
23. Waran, N.; McGreevy, P.; Casey, R.A. Training methods and horse welfare. In The Welfare of Horses; Waran, N., Ed.; Springer
Netherlands: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2007; pp. 151–180.
24. Hemsworth, P.H. Human–animal interactions in livestock production. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2003, 81, 185–198.
25. Wilson, M.L.; Perdue, B.M.; Bloomsmith, M.A.; Maple, T.L. Rates of reinforcement and measures of compliance in free and
protected contact elephant management systems. Zoo Biol. 2015, 34, 431–437.
26. Zulkifli, I. Review of human-animal interactions and their impact on animal productivity and welfare. J. Anim. Sci. Biotechnol.
2013, 4, 25.
27. Ward, S.J.; Melfi, V. The implications of husbandry training on zoo animal response rates. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2013, 147, 179–
Animals 2022, 12, 2907 14 of 17
28. Acharya, R.Y.; Hemsworth, P.H.; Coleman, G.J.; Kinder, J.E. The animal-human interface in farm animal production: Animal
fear, stress, reproduction and welfare. Animals 2022, 12, 487.
29. Napolitano, F.; Serrapica, F.; Braghieri, A.; Masucci, F.; Sabia, E.; De Rosa, G. Human-animal interactions in dairy buffalo farms.
Animals 2019, 9, 246.
30. Hemsworth, P.H.; Coleman, G.J.; Barnett, J.L.; Borg, S. Relationships between human-animal interactions and productivity of
commercial dairy cows. J. Anim. Sci. 2000, 78, 2821–2831,
31. Lindahl, C.; Pinzke, S.; Herlin, A.; Keeling, L.J. Human-animal interactions and safety during dairy cattle handling—Comparing
moving cows to milking and hoof trimming. J. Dairy Sci. 2016, 99, 2131–2141,
32. Ujita, A.; El Faro, L.; Vicentini, R.R.; Pereira Lima, M.L.; de Oliveira Fernandes, L.; Oliveira, A.P.; Veroneze, R.; Negrão, J.A.
Effect of positive tactile stimulation and prepartum milking routine training on behavior, cortisol and oxytocin in milking, milk
composition, and milk yield in gyr cows in early lactation. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2021, 234, 105205,
33. Grandin, T.; Shivley, C. How farm animals react and perceive stressful situations such as handling, restraint, and transport.
Animals 2015, 5, 1233–1251,
34. Dadone, L.I.; Schilz, A.; Friedman, S.G.; Bredahl, J.; Foxworth, S.; Chastain, B. Training giraffe (giraffa camelopardalis reticulata)
for front foot radiographs and hoof care. Zoo Biol. 2016, 35, 228–236.
35. Joyce-Zuniga, N.M.; Newberry, R.C.; Robbins, C.T.; Ware, J.V.; Jansen, H.T.; Nelson, O.L. Positive reinforcement training for
blood collection in grizzly bears (ursus arctos horribilis) results in undetectable elevations in serum cortisol levels: A
preliminary investigation. J. Appl. Anim. Welf. Sci. 2016, 19, 210–215.
36. Fernández-Lázaro, G.; Dye, M.H.; Eddie, C.; Ferrie, G.M. Strepsirrhine primate training programs in north american
institutions: Status and implications for future welfare assessment. Animals 2021, 11, 2462,
37. Deane, K. Training zoo animals for better welfare, better nursing. Veter. Nurse 2017, 8, 116–122.
38. Young, R.J.; Cipreste, C.F. Applying animal learning theory: Training captive animals to comply with veterinary and husbandry
procedures. Anim. Welf. 2004, 13, 225–232.
39. Ramirez, K. Marine mammal training. The history of training animals for medical behaviors and keys to their success. Veter.
Clin. N. Am. Exot. Anim. Pract. 2012, 15, 413–423.
40. Lloyd, J. Minimising stress for patients in the veterinary hospital: Why it is important and what can be done about it. Veter. Sci.
2017, 4, 22.
41. Howell, A.; Feyrecilde, M. Introduction to low-restraint and no-restraint veterinary care. In Cooperative Veterinary Care; John
Wiley & Sons, Inc: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2018; pp. 1–9.
42. Stellato, A.C.; Jajou, S.; Dewey, C.E.; Widowski, T.M.; Niel, L. Effect of a standardized four-week desensitization and counter-
conditioning training program on pre-existing veterinary fear in companion dogs. Animals 2019, 9, 767.
43. Loftus, L. Behavioural considerations in veterinary practice. Veter. Nurs. J. 2014, 29, 166–169.
44. Wess, L.; Böhm, A.; Schützinger, M.; Riemer, S.; Yee, J.R.; Affenzeller, N.; Arhant, C. Effect of cooperative care training on
physiological parameters and compliance in dogs undergoing a veterinary examination—A pilot study. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci.
2022, 250, 105615,
45. Yorke, A.; Matusiewicz, J.; Padalino, B. How to minimise the incidence of transport-related problem behaviours in horses: A
review. J. Equine Sci. 2017, 28, 67–75.
46. Yngvesson, J.; de Boussard, E.; Larsson, M.; Lundberg, A. Loading horses (equus caballus) onto trailers—behaviour of horses
and horse owners during loading and habituating. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2016, 184, 59–65.
47. McLean, A.N.; Christensen, J.W. The application of learning theory in horse training. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2017, 190, 18–27.
48. Pearson, G.; Waran, N.; Reardon, R.J.M.; Keen, J.; Dwyer, C. A delphi study to determine expert consensus on the behavioural
indicators of stress in horses undergoing veterinary care. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2021, 237, 105291,
49. Squibb, K.; Griffin, K.; Favier, R.; Ijichi, C. Poker face: Discrepancies in behaviour and affective states in horses during stressful
handling procedures. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2018, 202, 34–38.
50. Pearson, G. Stress in Equids Undergoing Veterinary Care and the Development of Interventions that Positively Influence the Horses'
Experience; The University of Edinburgh: Edinburgh, Scotland, 2022.
51. Yarnell, K.; Hall, C.; Billett, E. An assessment of the aversive nature of an animal management procedure (clipping) using
behavioral and physiological measures. Physiol. Behav. 2013, 118: 32-39.
52. Nellist, J. Let’s talk about stress: Equines. Veter. Nurse 2017, 8, 322–329.
53. Doherty, O.; McGreevy, P.D.; Pearson, G. The importance of learning theory and equitation science to the veterinarian. Appl.
Anim. Behav. Sci. 2017, 190, 111–122.
54. McGreevy, P.D.; McLean, A.N. Punishment in horse-training and the concept of ethical equitation. J. Veter. Behav. Clin. Appl.
Res. 2009, 4, 193–197.
55. McGreevy, P. Learning. In Equine Behavior: A Guide for Veterinarians and Equine Scientists; Elsevier Health Sciences: London, UK,
2012; pp. 83–113.
56. König v Borstel, U.; Visser, E.K.; Hall, C. Indicators of stress in equitation. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2017, 190, 43–56.
57. Pearson, G. Managing difficult behaviour in horses. Practice 2019, 41, 329–336.
58. Mansmann, R.A.; Currie, M.C.; Correa, M.T.; Sherman, B.; vom Orde, K. Equine behavior problems—around farriery: Foot pain
in 11 horses. J. Equine Veter. Sci. 2011, 31, 44–48.
Animals 2022, 12, 2907 15 of 17
59. Rybová, V.; Virues-Ortega, J.; Winchester, K.; Cowie, S.; Hurtado-Parrado, C.; Pfaller-Sadovsky, N. Controlling separation-
induced problem behavior in horses through target training. Learn. Motiv. 2022, 78, 101816,
60. Corgan, M.E.; Grandin, T.; Matlock, S. Evaluating the reaction to a complex rotated object in the american quarter horse (equus
caballus). Animals 2021, 11, 1383,
61. Dai, F.; Zappaterra, M.; Minero, M.; Bocchini, F.; Riley, C.B.; Padalino, B. Equine transport-related problem behaviors and
injuries: A survey of italian horse industry members. Animals 2021, 11, 1–19.
62. Mellor, D.J. Mouth pain in horses: Physiological foundations, behavioural indices, welfare implications, and a suggested
solution. Animals 2020, 10, 572.
63. Beaver, B.V.; Höglund, D.L. Horse handling: Practical applications of science. In Efficient Livestock Handling; Beaver, B.V.,
Höglund, D.L., Eds.; Academic Press: San Diego, CA, USA, 2016; pp. 81–122.
64. Lindegaard, C.; Vaabengaard, D.; Christophersen, M.T.; Ekstøm, C.T.; Fjeldborg, J. Evaluation of pain and inflammation
associated with hot iron branding and microchip transponder injection in horses. Am. J. Veter. Res. 2009, 70, 840–847.
65. Padalino, B.; Raidal, S.L.; Hall, E.; Knight, P.; Celi, P.; Jeffcott, L.; Muscatello, G. Survey of horse transportation in australia:
Issues and practices. Aust. Veter. J. 2016, 94, 349–357.
66. Slater, C.; Dymond, S. Using differential reinforcement to improve equine welfare: Shaping appropriate truck loading and feet
handling. Behav. Process. 2011, 86, 329–339.
67. Survey reveals high risk of injury to equine vets. Veter. Record 2014, 175, 263–263.
68. Carmichael, S.P.; Davenport, D.L.; Kearney, P.A.; Bernard, A.C. On and off the horse: Mechanisms and patterns of injury in
mounted and unmounted equestrians. Injury 2014, 45, 1479–1483,
69. Chapman, M.; Thompson, K. Preventing and investigating horse-related human injury and fatality in work and non-work
equestrian environments: A consideration of the workplace health and safety framework. Animals 2016, 6, 33.
70. Meredith, L.; Ekman, R.; Thomson, R. Horse-related incidents and factors for predicting injuries to the head. BMJ Open Sport
Exerc. Med. 2018, 4, e000398.
71. Merkies, K.; Franzin, O. Enhanced understanding of horse–human interactions to optimize welfare. Animals 2021, 11, 1347,
72. Merkies, K.; Sievers, A.; Zakrajsek, E.; MacGregor, H.; Bergeron, R.; von Borstel, U.K. Preliminary results suggest an influence
of psychological and physiological stress in humans on horse heart rate and behavior. J. Veter. Behav. 2014, 9, 242–247.
73. McDonnell, S. How to rehabilitate horses with injection shyness (or any procedure non-compliance). In American Association of
Equine Practitioners; San Antonio, TX, USA, 2000., 46, 168–172.
74. Dyson, S.; Bondi, A.; Routh, J.; Pollard, D.; Preston, T.; McConnell, C.; Kydd, J. Do owners recognise abnormal equine behaviour
when tacking-up and mounting? A comparison between responses to a questionnaire and real-time observations. Equine Veter.
Educ. 2021, 34, e375–e384.
75. McGreevy, P. Handling and transport. In Equine Behavior: A Guide for Veterinarians and Equine Scientists; Elsevier Health Sciences:
London, UK, 2012; pp. 307–323.
76. Mirza, M.H.; Costa, L.R.R. Physical restraint of the horse for clinical procedures. In Manual of Clinical Procedures in the Horse;
Costa, L.R.R., Paradis, M.R., Eds.; John Wiley & Sons, Inc: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2017; pp. 5–26.
77. Ali, A.B.A.; Gutwein, K.L.; Heleski, C.R. Assessing the influence of upper lip twitching in naive horses during an aversive
husbandry procedure (ear clipping). J. Veter. Behav. 2017, 21, 20–25.
78. Flakoll, B.; Ali, A.B.; Saab, C.Y. Twitching in veterinary procedures: How does this technique subdue horses? J. Veter. Behav.
2017, 18, 23–28.
79. Mills, G. Protecting equine vets from work injuries. Veter. Record 2018, 182, 156–156.
80. Watson, J.C.; McDonnell, S.M. Effects of three non-confrontational handling techniques on the behavior of horses during a
simulated mildly aversive veterinary procedure. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2018, 203, 19–23.
81. Nellist, J. Equine behavioural first aid. Veter. Nurse 2019, 10, 540–545.
82. Du, Q.; Ma, X.; Wang, S.; Zhou, S.; Luo, C.; Tian, K.; Fei, W.; Liu, X. A digital intervention using virtual reality helmets to reduce
dental anxiety of children under local anesthesia and primary teeth extraction: A randomized clinical trial. Brain Behav. 2022,
12, e2600.
83. Kain, Z.N.; Mayes, L.C.; Caldwell-Andrews, A.A.; Karas, D.E.; McClain, B.C. Preoperative anxiety, postoperative pain, and
behavioral recovery in young children undergoing surgery. Pediatrics 2006, 118, 651–658.
84. Brown, S.C.; Hart, G.; Chastain, D.P.; Schneeweiss, S.; McGrath, P.A. Reducing distress for children during invasive procedures:
Randomized clinical trial of effectiveness of the pedisedate. Pediatr. Anesthesia 2009, 19, 725–731.
85. Riemer, S.; Heritier, C.; Windschnurer, I.; Pratsch, L.; Arhant, C.; Affenzeller, N. A review on mitigating fear and aggression in
dogs and cats in a veterinary setting. Animals 2021, 11, 1–27.
86. Edwards, P.T.; Smith, B.P.; McArthur, M.L.; Hazel, S.J. Fearful fido: Investigating dog experience in the veterinary context in an
effort to reduce distress. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2019, 213, 14–25.
87. Burrows, A.; Liptovszky, M.; Self, I. Physiological and anesthetic effects of hand injection versus darting to induce anesthesia
in chimpanzees (pan troglodytes). J. Zoo Wildl. Med. 2021, 52, 445–452.
88. Rodd, H.; Timms, L.; Noble, F.; Bux, S.; Porritt, J.; Marshman, Z. ‘Message to dentist’: Facilitating communication with dentally
anxious children. Dent. J. 2019, 7, 69.
89. Perry, J.N.; Hooper, V.D.; Masiongale, J. Reduction of preoperative anxiety in pediatric surgery patients using age-appropriate
teaching interventions. J. PeriAnesthesia Nurs. 2012, 27, 69–81.
Animals 2022, 12, 2907 16 of 17
90. Sabeti, F.; Mohammadpour, M.; Pouraboli, B.; Tahmasebi, M.; Hasanpour, M. Health care providers’ experiences of the non-
pharmacological pain and anxiety management and its barriers in the pediatric intensive care units. J. Pediatr. Nurs. 2021, 60,
91. Payne, E.; Boot, M.; Starling, M.; Henshall, C.; McLean, A.; Bennett, P.; McGreevy, P. Evidence of horsemanship and
dogmanship and their application in veterinary contexts. Veter. J. 2015, 204, 247–254.
92. Hendriksen, P.; Elmgreen, K.; Ladewig, J. Trailer-loading of horses: Is there a difference between positive and negative
reinforcement concerning effectiveness and stress-related signs? J. Veter. Behav. 2011, 6, 261–266.
93. Christensen, J.W. Object habituation in horses: The effect of voluntary versus negatively reinforced approach to frightening
stimuli: Object habituation in horses. Equine Veter. J. 2013, 45, 298–301.
94. Platzer, J.; Feuerbacher, E.N. Reinforcer efficacy of grain for horses. J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 2022, 118, 302–315.
95. Sankey, C.; Richard-Yris, M.-A.; Henry, S.; Fureix, C.; Nassur, F.; Hausberger, M. Reinforcement as a mediator of the perception
of humans by horses (equus caballus). Anim. Cogn. 2010, 13, 753–764.
96. Larssen, R.; Roth, L.S.V. Regular positive reinforcement training increases contact-seeking behaviour in horses. Appl. Anim.
Behav. Sci. 2022, 252, 105651,
97. Innes, L.; McBride, S. Negative versus positive reinforcement: An evaluation of training strategies for rehabilitated horses. Appl.
Anim. Behav. Sci. 2008, 112, 357–368.
98. Sankey, C.; Richard-Yris, M.-A.; Leroy, H.; Henry, S.; Hausberger, M. Positive interactions lead to lasting positive memories in
horses, equus caballus. Anim. Behav. 2010, 79, 869–875.
99. Heleski, C.; Bauson, L.; Bello, N. Evaluating the addition of positive reinforcement for learning a frightening task: A pilot study
with horses. J. Appl. Anim. Welf. Sci. 2008, 11, 213–222.
100. Bierke, C.M.; Meinen, R.H.; Wilkens, E.E.; Leponiemi, M.A.; Hiney, K.M. A comparison of negative and positive reinforcement
in naïve horses. J. Equine Veter. Sci. 2013, 33, 397–397.
101. Valenchon, M.; Lévy, F.; Moussu, C.; Lansade, L. Stress affects instrumental learning based on positive or negative
reinforcement in interaction with personality in domestic horses. PLoS ONE, 2017, 12, e0170783.
102. Fox, A.E.; Belding, D.L. Reducing pawing in horses using positive reinforcement: Horse pawing. J. Appl. Behav. Anal. 2015, 48,
103. Briefer Freymond, S.; Briefer, E.F.; Zollinger, A.; Gindrat-von Allmen, Y.; Wyss, C.; Bachmann, I. Behaviour of horses in a
judgment bias test associated with positive or negative reinforcement. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2014, 158, 34–45.
104. Hockenhull, J.; Creighton, E. Unwanted oral investigative behaviour in horses: A note on the relationship between mugging
behaviour, hand-feeding titbits and clicker training. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2010, 127, 104–107.
105. Cloutier Barbour, C.; Danforth, M.D.; Murphy, H.; Sleeper, M.M.; Kutinsky, I. Monitoring great ape heart health through
innovative electrocardiogram technology: Training methodologies and welfare implications. Zoo Biol. 2020, 39, 443–447.
106. Callealta, I.; Lueders, I.; Luther-Binoir, I.; Ganswindt, A. Positive reinforcement conditioning as a tool for frequent minimally
invasive blood and vaginal swab sampling in african lions (panthera leo). J. Appl. Anim. Welf. Sci. 2020, 23, 508–519.
107. Lomb, J.; Mauger, A.; von Keyserlingk, M.A.G.; Weary, D.M. Effects of positive reinforcement training for heifers on responses
to a subcutaneous injection. J. Dairy Sci. 2021, 104, 6146–6158.
108. Mattison, S. Training birds and small mammals for medical behaviors. Veter. Clin. N. Am. Exotic Anim. Pract. 2012, 15, 487–499.
109. Hellmuth, H.; Augustine, L.; Watkins, B.; Hope, K. Using operant conditioning and desensitization to facilitate veterinary care
with captive reptiles. Veter. Clin. N. Am. Exot. Anim. Pract. 2012, 15, 425–443.
110. Weiss, E.; Wilson, S. The use of classical and operant conditioning in training aldabra tortoises (geochelone gigantea) for
venipuncture and other husbandry issues. J. Appl. Anim. Welf. Sci. 2003, 6, 33–38.
111. Daugette, K.F.; Hoppes, S.; Tizard, I.; Brightsmith, D. Positive reinforcement training facilitates the voluntary participation of
laboratory macaws with veterinary procedures. J. Avian Med. Surg. 2012, 26, 248–254.
112. Corwin, A.L. Training fish and aquatic invertebrates for husbandry and medical behaviors. Veter. Clin. N. Am. Exotic Anim.
Pract. 2012, 15, 455–467.
113. Torcivia, C.; McDonnell, S.M. Case series report: Systematic rehabilitation of specific health care procedure aversions in 5
ponies. J. Veter. Behav. 2018, 25, 41–51.
114. Ferguson, D.L.; Rosales-Ruiz, J. Loading the problem loader: The effects of target training and shaping on trailer-loading
behavior of horses. J. Appl. Behav. Anal. 2001, 34, 409–424.
115. Hanggi, E.B. The Thinking Horse: Cognition and Perception Reviewed in AAEP Proceedings; American Association of Equine
Practitioners, 2005., 51, 246-255.
116. Ellis, S.; Greening, L. Positively reinforcing an operant task using tactile stimulation and food—A comparison in horses using
clicker training. J. Veter. Behav. 2016, 15, 78.
117. Kieson, E.; Felix, C.; Webb, S.; Abramson, C.I. The effects of a choice test between food rewards and human interaction in a herd
of domestic horses of varying breeds and experiences. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2020, 231, 105075,
118. Martinez de Andino, E.V.; McDonnell, S.M. Evaluation of operant learning in young foals using target training. Appl. Anim.
Behav. Sci. 2017, 193, 67–72.
119. Williams, J.L.; Friend, T.H.; Nevill, C.H.; Archer, G. The efficacy of a secondary reinforcer (clicker) during acquisition and
extinction of an operant task in horses. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2004, 88, 331–341.
Animals 2022, 12, 2907 17 of 17
120. Christensen, J.W.; Rundgren, M.; Olsson, K. Training methods for horses: Habituation to a frightening stimulus. Equine Vet. J.
2006, 38, 439–443.
121. Leiner, L.; Fendt, M. Behavioural fear and heart rate responses of horses after exposure to novel objects: Effects of habituation.
Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2011, 131, 104–109.
122. Butterworth, J. Protecting equine vets in practice. Veter. Record 2018, 182, 719–720.
123. Butterworth, J. Think ahead: Safety first for equine vets. Veter. Record 2016, 178, 295–296.
124. Shaw, L. All equine vets should wear helmets. Veter. Record 2018, 182, 521–521.
125. Macdonald, E.; Brown, J.; Parkin, T.D.H. P173 work related injuries in equine veterinary practitioners—A comparative study.
Occup. Environ. Med. 2016, 73, A178.
126. Parkin, T.D.H.; Brown, J.; Macdonald, E.B. Occupational risks of working with horses: A questionnaire survey of equine
veterinary surgeons. Equine Veter. Educ. 2018, 30, 200–205.
127. Young, T.; Creighton, E.; Smith, T.; Hosie, C. A novel scale of behavioural indicators of stress for use with domestic horses. Appl.
Anim. Behav. Sci. 2012, 140, 33–43.
128. Beaver, B.V. Equine behavioral medicine. In Equine Behavioral Medicine; Beaver, B.V., Ed.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA,
USA, 2019; pp. 279–310.
129. Erickson, A.; Harbin, K.; MacPherson, J.; Rundle, K.; Overall, K.L. A review of pre-appointment medications to reduce fear and
anxiety in dogs and cats at veterinary visits. Can. Veter. J. 2021, 62, 952–960.
130. Carroll, S.L.; Sykes, B.W.; Mills, P.C. An online survey investigating perceived prevalence and treatment options for stereotypic
behaviours in horses and undesirable behaviours associated with handling and riding. Equine Veter. Educ. 2020, 32 (Suppl. S11),
131. Overall, K.L. Paradigms for pharmacologic use as a treatment component in feline behavioral medicine. J. Feline Med. Surg.
2004, 6, 29–42.
132. Tynes, V. Managing storm phobias with difficult patients-and clients. Veter. Med. 2012, 107, 206–207.
133. Kristi, R. Pet owners clamoring for fear-free approach? DVM360 2015, 46, 5.
134. Couture, M.; Stellato, A.C.; Moody, C.M.; Niel, L. Owner perspectives of cat handling techniques used in the veterinary clinic.
J. Appl. Anim. Welf. Sci. 2022, 1–11.
135. McGreevy, P.; McLean, A.; Buckley, P.; McConaghy, F.; McLean, C. How riding may affect welfare: What the equine
veterinarian needs to know: How riding may affect welfare. Equine Veter. Educ. 2011, 23, 531–539.
136. Butterworth, J. Equine behaviour. Veter. Record 2014, 174, 308–308.
137. Hernandez, E.; Fawcett, A.; Brouwer, E.; Rau, J.; Turner, P.V. Speaking up: Veterinary ethical responsibilities and animal welfare
issues in everyday practice. Animals 2018, 8, 15.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Full-text available
Positive reinforcement is becoming more common in horse training. Identifying effective reinforcers is critical for training success. The aim of this study was to determine relative reinforcer efficacy of different grains. Four horses learned to muzzle touch a target, after which they were tested using a progressive ratio schedule of reinforcement with different grains as the consequence. Break points were used to determine relative reinforcer efficacy of each grain and were also converted into unit price per kilocalorie to determine if caloric value impacted reinforcer efficacy. Condition 1 compared three textured grains that spanned industry‐accepted standards of low to high nonstructural carbohydrate content. Condition 2 compared three pelleted grains that similarly differed in nonstructural carbohydrate content, comparable to Condition 1, but that had a different texture than those of Condition 1. Finally, Condition 3 directly compared one grain each from Conditions 1 and 2. Results showed overall little difference in reinforcer efficacy or unit price between grains but found that all grains tested functioned as reinforcers for the horses. This suggests that a range of commercially available grains can maintain behavior and therefore be used for training. We also identified possible extraexperimental factors that impact reinforcer efficacy.
Full-text available
Introduction Behavior management of children during dental treatment is an important but challenging issue. As a new technique, VR has been applied in pediatric dental anxiety. But there is no final conclusion whether VR reduces children's dental anxiety. Methods The aim of the study is to assess the effectiveness of a digital intervention using virtual reality (VR) helmets on dental anxiety, pain perception, and behavior triggered for children, as well as occurrence of simulator sickness in local anesthesia and primary teeth extraction. A total of 128 children, who needed primary teeth extraction under local anesthesia, were randomly allocated into two groups: use VR helmets and traditional behavior guidance procedures (control). Modified Child Fear Survey Schedule Dental Subscale (CFSS‐DS), Wong‐Baker FACES Pain Scale, Houpt Scale, and Simulator sickness questionnaire (SSQ) were used to assess children's dental anxiety, pain perception, and behavior triggered and occurrence of simulator sickness. Results CFSS‐DS score in the VR group was significantly decreased after dental treatment (34.58±6.90 before operation and 32.32±15.58 after operation, p = .02). The score of Wong Baker Scale in the VR group (3.47±0.76) was significantly lower than that in the control group (5.56±1.13, p = .015). There was no significant difference in the Houpt Behavior Scale score and the SSQ score between the VR group and the control group (p = .35, p = .305). Conclusion The use of VR helmets in primary teeth extraction can significantly reduce dental anxiety and pain perception in children without occurrence of simulator sickness.
Full-text available
One way to reduce fear and lack of compliance during veterinary procedures is ‘cooperative care training’, training animals to voluntarily participate in husbandry and medical care. Here we assessed the effects of cooperative care training on heart rate (HR), heart rate variability (HRV), tympanic membrane temperature (TMT) and compliance (i.e., all steps of the examination completed) of dogs during a veterinary examination. A blinded controlled trial with 47 dogs (training group (TG): 26; control group (CG): 21) was carried out. Forty dogs completed the study (TG: 22, CG:18). Dogs and their owners took part in a standardized veterinary visit twice (visit interval: 140±23 days). In between, the TG took part in cooperative care training (10±2 group training sessions, additional training at home). Linear mixed models were calculated (fixed effects HR/HRV: group* visit* period, TMT: group* visit; random effect: dogID). Compliance (completed steps of exam) was analyzed using McNemar tests. HR/HRV was higher/lower during the veterinary examination compared to the waiting room (period: p<0.001), indicating that the examination was more stressful. No significant differences in HR/HRV regarding group*visit were found. TMT, taken at the end of each examination, resulted in a significant group*visit interaction (p = 0.008); stress appeared increased during visit 2 in the CG whereas in the TG a heterogeneous pattern, with 42% of dogs with reduced rightward bias, was observed. Compliance was lower in the TG during the second visit (p = 0.04). Trainer and owners claimed observable improvement of behavior during training and a decrease in HR between visits correlated significantly with trainer perception of high training success (rs = -0.52, p = 0.049). Overall, transfer of trained skills to the veterinary examination performed by a team blinded to the group allocation was poor. TMT analyses and HR/HRV data within the training group, suggest that the training had differing effects on the dogs based on their previous tolerance of handling and their progress made during training. Further research how to optimize training programs, including desensitization and counterconditioning, and their outcomes is needed.
Full-text available
A negative human-animal relationship (HAR) from the perspective of the animal is a limiting factor affecting farm animal welfare, as well as farm animal productivity. Research in farm animals has elucidated sequential relationships between stockperson attitudes, stockperson behaviour, farm animal fear behaviour, farm animal stress physiology, and farm animal productivity. In situations where stockperson attitudes to and interactions with farm animals are sub-optimal, through animal fear and stress, both animal welfare and productivity, including reproductive performance, can be compromised. There is a growing body of evidence that farm animals often seek and enjoy interacting with humans, but our understanding of the effects of a positive HAR on stress resilience and productivity in farm animals is limited. In this review, we explore the pathways by which stress induced by human-animal interactions can negatively affect farm animal reproduction, in particular, via inhibitory effects on the secretion of gonadotrophins. We also review the current knowledge of the stockperson characteristics and the nature of stockperson interactions that affect fear and physiological stress in farm animals. The contents of this review provide an insight into the importance of the HAR on farm animal welfare and reproduction while highlighting the gap in knowledge regarding the effects of a positive HAR on farm animals.
Full-text available
Many articles have shown the benefits of operant conditioning training techniques in the care and welfare of several species of nonhuman primates; however, the information regarding their use in strepsirrhine species is scarce. We assessed the development and current status of training programs with these species in North American institutions. An online survey was distributed through members of the Association of Zoos and Aquariums using a multiple-choice format. We collected information related to training program details; animals, behaviors, and techniques; the evaluation process; and the impact of training. Seventy-one organizations completed the survey, with the results showing that 97% of respondents trained their strepsirrhines with the main objective of husbandry and veterinary care (around 80%). Sixty-eight percent of organizations did not report any risk in training these species. The benefits reported include increases in positive human–animal interactions (97%), psychological well-being (88%), and staff awareness of animal behaviors (90%). However, a multi-dimensional approach to measure the efficacy of training could provide a deeper understanding of its impact on the welfare of strepsirrhine primates. We hope that the data offered in this survey can help in this future assessment.
Equidae are herd animals, yet domesticated horses are routinely separated from their conspecifics. Separation of horses that are strongly bonded to one another can result in separation-induced challenging behaviors including human- and object-directed aggression, motor agitation, and stereotypy. There is a paucity of evidence-based strategies to control separation-induced problem behavior in domesticated horses. The current study used target training as an incompatible-behavior strategy to decrease separation-induced challenging behaviors. Four horses with a history of separation-induced challenging behaviors were clicker and target trained. Participants underwent a multiple-baseline experimental design across horse-owner dyads. The multiple-baseline design is a time-series approach based on the randomization of the treatment inception timepoint that can demonstrate treatment effects with small sample sizes. Horses underwent separation trials while being required to touch a target upon verbal commands. Compliance was reinforced with clicks paired with small portions of high-preference edibles. The intervention decreased separation-induced challenging behaviors in all horses to near-zero levels. In order to facilitate the uptake of treatment gains, owners participated in a brief owner training protocol during the generalization phase of the study. While the field has traditionally relied on aversive control, the effectiveness of the current intervention supports a wider application of reinforcement-based strategies in equine training.
Horses are commonly trained using negative reinforcement. However, a growing body of scientific evidence supports positive reinforcement as an efficient training method for horses. In this study we investigated the effects of adding a small but regular amount of positive reinforcement training to horses trained with negative reinforcement. A total of 36 privately owned horses not previously trained with positive reinforcement were divided into a training (N=17) and a control (N=19) group. The owners in the training group were asked to follow a training plan based on positive reinforcement for eight to nine weeks, in addition to their normal negative reinforcement training. The control horses continued with their usual negative reinforcement training. All horses were subjected to behavioural tests before and after the training period: a motionless human test to assess contact-seeking behaviour and a cognitive bias test to assess emotional state. Mane hair samples were obtained from all horses at the start and at the end of the training period to analyse hair cortisol concentrations as an expression of long-term stress. In addition, all owners filled out a questionnaire about their perceived relationship with their horses before and after the training period. We found that horses in the training group engaged in more physical contact (P=0.050) with an unfamiliar person after the training period compared to before. The training group also tended to improve their owner-assessed relationship score (P=0.072). They did not, however, show changes in their emotional state as assessed by the cognitive bias test (P>0.1). Furthermore, we found no difference between the training and control groups in terms of hair cortisol concentrations. We conclude that a small but regular addition of positive reinforcement training can increase horses’ contact-seeking behaviour towards humans but is not enough to improve their emotional state or long-term stress levels.
An online cross-sectional survey was used to assess cat owner attitudes towards 12 cat handling techniques used during veterinary appointments. Likert-scale questions were designed to assess level of agreement with handling techniques when the participants' cat is calm, fearful, or aggressive. We examined the influence of participant's cat attachment and demographic information on agreement towards common handling techniques. Overall, participants (n = 1754) disagreed with higher restraint techniques such as full body with scruffing, and agreed with lower restraint methods such as minimal restraint and use of towels, regardless of cat demeanor. Logistic regression models revealed that participants were more likely to disagree with the use of full body restraint with scruff on fearful cats if they had a higher pet attachment score (p = 0.002), were residents of the US (p = 0.003), or were between the ages of 51-70 years of age (p = 0.001). Owner agreement with techniques involving a lower degree of restraint during routine veterinary procedures provides further support for current recommendations encouraging handlers to use these techniques with cats, and to avoid methods requiring a higher degree of restraint.
This review focuses on pre-appointment medications used to decrease fear and anxiety in dogs and cats related to veterinary visits. A review of the literature revealed data on 4 medications from 4 medication classes that have been used to ameliorate acute situational fear and anxiety in dogs and cats: gabapentin, trazodone, oral transmucosal dexmedetomidine, and alprazolam. The available information on use, mechanism of action, and pharmacokinetics is reviewed.
Objectives Children in the intensive care unit experience a high level of pain and anxiety. This study aimed to reveal the health care providers experience of non-pharmacological pain and anxiety management and its barriers in the pediatric intensive care unit. Methods This qualitative-descriptive study was conducted with thirteen nurses and five physicians in the pediatric intensive care unit in Iran. Individual, in-depth and semi-structured interviews were conducted, which were analyzed by conventional content analysis. Results Five main categories were identified from data analysis: 1) The importance of parents' presence, 2) Disturbance in the presence of parents and communication during the COVID-19 pandemic, 3) Choosing non-pharmacological approaches according to the child's interests and conditions, 4) Building Trust in the Child through Non-Pharmacological Interventions 5) Barriers to non-pharmacological pain and anxiety management in the pediatric intensive care unit. Conclusion Health care providers implement some non-pharmacological methods to manage pain and anxiety in the pediatric intensive care unit. Facilitating the open presence of parents, using innovative methods to communicate with children, and training and psychological support for nurses and parents, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic are recommended.