Hello

I was with a client the other day talking about enrichment etc and ...something got me thinking...

We know that having a degree of control over the environment can be considered to be good with respect to animal welfare (discussed extensively in animal welfare literature but also mentionned in 'The Domestic Horse' book). That book suggests that if horses could control the level of light in their stables, that might be desirable.

But ...
how would you train a horse to turn a light on and off (eg a very big flippy switch) but in a way that wasn't all about the action being reinforcing from a play perspective or from a learning perspective. What I mean is.....turning on and off a switch could be solitary object play for a horse and if salient (because the horse is bored/in social isolation etc), it might do that as play and the movement/stimulation might be reinforcing BUT maybe at the same time the horse could get annoyed that the lights were going on and off......(eg it might want to play with the switch but not necessarily make the lights go on - guess you could have a few switches, easily discriminated between, to see if its the switch or the light motivating the horse)...

Control of light being on and off isn't something that could really happen naturally, apart from walking into a dark cave etc. but in that case other motivators would be present. So would a domestic horse gain anything from controlling this aspect of its environment? Lets ignore for now the effect of horses living in stables next to each other having control of lights that affect other horses...

Thoughts?

Kathy Houpt did a study in the 1980's where mares in darkened stalls could switch on a light by breaking a test beam. The light would stay on for 60s and then go off again.

Quoting Arave (1996) J.Anim.Sci. 74:1996-2009 ('cause I don't have access to Houpt's original paper):

"Five mares kept the lights on an average of 61 min per 24 h; the desire for light was most apparent from 0600 to 1000 (18.2 min) and least apparent from 1800 to 2200 (6.9 min)."

Ref: Houpt & Houpt (1988) Social and illumination preferences of mares. J.Anim.Sci. 66:2159.

Then:

"Broilers and layers trained to operate a light switch by pecking (lights on 1 to 3 min per response) illuminated themselves approximately 80% of the time (Savory & Duncan, 1982). When birds were allowed to switch the lights on or off, they kept the lights on more that 80% of the time."

I keep changing my mind on this one....

First I thought, why would you want to bother?, given that in the scheme of things light might not be a very pressing concern compared with other things that domestic horses often have to deal with. Particularly when, as you say, it's not generally something horses naturally have the opportunity to do.

Then I thought, but choice is good, who am I to say what a horse's priorities are - I don't know what it's like to be a horse. But then I thought of the horses in, say a college situation, and how shut down they were. Would they be able to grasp that sort of concept and, if so, would it be ethical to give them some tiny element of control over their environment when control is denied to them in virtually all of their existence? Isn't it better that they get used to the idea that they have no control and have "shut down" as a security blanket?

Then I saw Francis's post and thought I was being unfair, clearly it is something horses can learn to regulate and would appreciate the option of doing.

Then I thought but it's based on a sample of 5 so is it really reliable stats?

Then I thought I'd answer the question and think of a way of doing it. An alternative to a switch would be to have two nice spacious stables with a connecting door arranged in a way that kept one stable light and one dark but the horse have constant access to both. Both stables could be equipped with ad-lib hay, water, bedding etc and video cameras and typical time-budget analysis could be carried out to see how long the horse chose to be in each stable and which behaviours it chose to carry out. That would remove the need for any training and additional reinforcers.

Then I stopped thinking and went home for tea and cake....

Catherine

I was of a similar mind, how relevant in the grand scheme of things would the choice of light vs dark be?

Then I started thinking about what other choices would be more relevant in a stable for example controlling heat. So I got all excited about having heat lamps and even air conditioning in the summer! perhaps even a button to push that would spray fly repellent on them.

Then i realised as nice as it would be how practical would it truly be to fit air-con into every single stable?

Maybe next week when I win the lottery!!!

All joking aside the principle is a great one and I hope they do look into it in more depth.

if so, would it be ethical to give them some tiny element of control over their environment when control is denied to them in virtually all of their existence?

But I would turn this on its head and say, if you can give them control over something, but you choose not to, is this ethical?

I guess I'm thinking of the Seligman learned helplessness research and the idea of noncontingency - if there is at least one thing the animal knows it can control, is it more likely to be healthy and less stressed than the animal which believes that there is nothing about its environment that it can control? Is there a continuum, where having one or two small things under control is better than none, but having 10 or 12 is better again? Or is it the case that there's a cutoff, below which the animal will appear "shut down" and where there's more of a welfare concern in terms of quality of life and likelihood of illnesses and stereotypies?

My gut feeling is that any control at all is better than none - so I'd give the choice. If the animal is truly shut down, then they won't be able avail of the choice offered because of the noncontingency issue (nothing they do has a noticeable effect on the environment). If they're not, they're entitled to the choice but I'm not entitled to deny them.

This is a very off the cuff response and not well thought through, but I would love to hear alternative views.

Oh - also my first reponse to the light idea was the sort of conditioned place preference type approach - if the horse stands in a particular place in the stable, the light comes on - then measure and see how much time they spend standing there in order to determine how rewarding the light is vs other behaviours within the overall time budget. Retrospectively, I can see the alternatives put forward by other people have more going for them...

Someone and I can't rememember who did some research on SAD in horses- I remember emailing the girl a few years ago but when my laptop died I lost all my contacts- if someone knows who it is please post!
From what I can remember it was to the effect that horses could suffer from SAD or equivalent of stabled excessively. You know I can't even remember if it was published or how I heard about it?!
Sorry for not being more helpful, but thought it had some relevance to this discussion, because if horses can have problems caused by lack of light (I believe there is also something about vit D deficiency in stabled horses somewhere but again I can't remember where I read it), then offering them the chance to regulate their own light levels would be good? I also remember when I worked at the stud one of the horses used to flip his lights on and off- but I would definitely say that was boredom as much as anything else... but then perhaps he did just like having his light on!!
Helen

While horses don't change the light in their natural environment very often or have any real control over it or any behavioural reson to do so they do experience high levels of light. Perhasps allowing them to control levels of light wuldn't be especially important to them from a control point of view but would be good for them from an improvd environnment perspective as it would allow them to experience more natural light. Most stables seem quite dark inside most of the time compared to an open field so even a little extra light might make it better.

"Then I thought I'd answer the question and think of a way of doing it. An alternative to a switch would be to have two nice spacious stables with a connecting door arranged in a way that kept one stable light and one dark but the horse have constant access to both. Both stables could be equipped with ad-lib hay, water, bedding etc and video cameras and typical time-budget analysis could be carried out to see how long the horse chose to be in each stable and which behaviours it chose to carry out. That would remove the need for any training and additional reinforcers.

Then I stopped thinking and went home for tea and cake...."

I have to say my first thought was also 'why bother?', but then Henry and his pal are out 24/7. I must say that even in winter, I don't bother with a torch 9 times out of 10, as I know where everything is and I really hate it when I can only see things in the beam. The problem with the above set up is that many horses would simply stand in one stable, eat all the hay and if it runs out, they'd move to the next one, unless the doorway is completely open, which would increase the mooch factor (new scientific term?!?). Then, both stables would have a degree of light!

I've visited the ponies at ALL times of day and night and I have to say that I only find them sleeping at 9-11am. From this perspective, perhaps some horses would find it comforting to have the light on, especially if daylight hours are packed with work.

To be honest I'd much rather let them have control over whether or not they go into the stable in the first place, although I appreciate that this isn't possible in many cases.

Now it's time for MY tea and cake!

.. Then I thought....

If one had the money and time to buy the equipment and pay someone to do the research, why wouldn't you just buy a big field, plant some interesting hedgerow, sow a simple system grass seed and provide a nice light open airy field shelter with some hard standing, pea gravel and varying options of grazing! and stop experimenting on your horse! Just a totally personal point of view I suppose and not very good for furthering the knowledge of science, but hey!

I agree Jo! But perhaps in interests of science you could do the set up you suggest then also provide access to two stables, one lit and one not and do a nice observational study of where the horses spent their time!! Where's Anne McBride, I feel a suggestion for an MSc project for one of the students coming on....! Would do it myself if I had the time and facilities...!
Because you see the sad thing is that although we appreciate that that is the kind of environment that the majority of horses prefer (and being given the control of having choice), many many horse owners/ horse people do not appreciate it, and need to see the data from research to really take it on board.
Best wishes,
Helen
ps I take it no-one knows who did the stuff on SAD in horses?

SAD & Horses:

I thought this rang a bell and have turned up the December 2004 issue of HORSE magazine, where SAD is discussed - the citation is of studies done at Nottingham Trent University, contact address Carol Hall at
carol.hall@ntu.ac.uk
Hope this is of use,
Rita

Thank you Rita!! Yes that is the one. Remembered the name as soon as I saw it- always the way!

Helen

Sorry for delay getting back to you on this one....


But I would turn this on its head and say, if you can give them control over something, but you choose not to, is this ethical?

I guess I'm thinking of the Seligman learned helplessness research and the idea of noncontingency - if there is at least one thing the animal knows it can control, is it more likely to be healthy and less stressed than the animal which believes that there is nothing about its environment that it can control? Is there a continuum, where having one or two small things under control is better than none, but having 10 or 12 is better again? Or is it the case that there's a cutoff, below which the animal will appear "shut down" and where there's more of a welfare concern in terms of quality of life and likelihood of illnesses and stereotypies?

My gut feeling is that any control at all is better than none - so I'd give the choice. If the animal is truly shut down, then they won't be able avail of the choice offered because of the noncontingency issue (nothing they do has a noticeable effect on the environment). If they're not, they're entitled to the choice but I'm not entitled to deny them.


I think this depends very much on the horse, the owner and the environment. Sometimes I would absolutely agree with you. I give my horse the choice in every situation when I can reasonably do so but there are times when I put my foot down and say no to him. But he's a sufficiently well-balanced horse where I feel it is ethical to do so. He can cope with decision-making but he can also cope with being denied certain choices. Likewise a less well-adjusted horse who is in a supportive relationship with its owner - the horse needs the right environment to be able to grow and feel confident being himself.

I spent some time at a typical equestrian college where the horses were depressingly institutionalised and generally punished for showing any opinion about anything. In their cases I felt that to give them choices was unethical (which was partially why on our course we actually ended up doing very little +R practical work with them). I believe that, while learned helplessness is generally considered a well-defined state, there is a scale of conditioned suppression leading towards full-blown LH (not proven as far as I am aware but seems the case through observation). So while an animal in full LH may be "protected" by noncontingency, what about the animal who is only part-way there? They are very vulnerable because they don't have that noncontingency, just a variable schedule of punishment. And those cases are the ones we most commonly come across when we talk about "shut down" horses.

The trouble with these cases is that between a little bit of generalisation and a bit more of variable schedules and extinction bursts they start to believe that they can take back a little control over their environment. Depending on how observant the trainer is they might be punished straight away or not until the behaviour has escalated a bit more. It's something you see quite often if you lurk on clicker forums - someone who normally rules their horse with an iron fist suddenly jumps on the CT bandwagon. The horse starts offering behaviours and gets rewarded for them. Gradually (and probably un-noticed by the owner) the behaviours escalate a little, get strung out on a VSR and all of a sudden the owner has a problem and starts punishing the horse for something that has been trained inadvertantly. The conclusion is that "CT doesn't work" or "encourages bad behaviour" and they go back to a more dominant relationship which actually is preferable because they both understand their place and have learnt to cope with it.

I know this has strayed a long way from the initial question of whether horses should be able to choose light or dark(!) but I think the same issues are relevant, just on different scales. Should reiterate that this is my opinion rather than fact.....



I do agree with Jo, Diane about how this shouldn't be necessary but the reality is that some horses are in competition yards, riding schools and/or on box rest etc and if we can use scientific experiments on well-adjusted horses to increase the welfare of less lucky horses a tad then hasn't that got to be a good thing? Likewise that comment in the last EBF magazine about whether horses actually appreciate having the radio left on for them. And besides, designing thought-experiments is fun, even if they never get put into practice (should I get out more??)

Diane - if you did the experiment enough times then a bias like that should become obvious. I wish I could draw the stable layout I have in my mind (life's too short!) - but in my imagination the door is in the middle to reduce the likelihood of that occuring. Besides, horses munching hay in our field move from pile to pile (even when not being bullied!) so would presumably continue to do so in the stable set-up if given the opportunity. This experiment could determine so many things!


As for SAD - do you all believe we can prove it applies to horses? I've not seen any research but would be interested to know how effects due to access to grass, turn-out time, hard feed, exercise etc etc were accounted for so that SAD was concluded. It's not that I don't believe horses can get it (although even there I must admit to a healthy scepticism!) just that I'm not very convinced that an experiment could be designed and results analysed unambiguously. In fact, I think I have the same (although to lesser extent) thoughts about SAD in humans but that's a whole other thread so please someone start a new one if you are able to put me straight on that!

Catherine