Next Article in Journal
Effects of Para-Toluenesulfonamide on Canine Melanoma Xenotransplants in a BALB/c Nude Mouse Model
Previous Article in Journal
Comparison of Changes in Gut Microbiota in Wild Boars and Domestic Pigs Using 16S rRNA Gene and Metagenomics Sequencing Technologies
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Animals
Volume 12
Issue 17
10.3390/ani12172271
animals-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Minimizing the Effects of Social Isolation of Horses by Contact with Animals of a Different Species: The Domestic Goat as an Example

by
Anna Wiśniewska
1,
Iwona Janczarek
1,*,
Ewelina Tkaczyk
1,
Izabela Wilk
1,
Wiktoria Janicka
1,
Tomasz Próchniak
2,
Beata Kaczmarek
3,
Elżbieta Pokora
1 and
Jarosław Łuszczyński
4
1
Department of Horse Breeding and Use, Faculty of Animal Breeding and Bioeconomy, University of Life Sciences in Lublin, Akademicka 13 Str, 20-950 Lublin, Poland
2
Institute of Biological Basis of Animal Production, Faculty of Animal Breeding and Bioeconomy, University of Life Sciences in Lublin, Akademicka 13 Str, 20-950 Lublin, Poland
3
Department and Clinic of Animal Internal Diseases, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Life Sciences in Lublin, Akademicka 13 Str, 20-950 Lublin, Poland
4
Department of Genetics, Animal Breeding and Ethology, Faculty of Animal Science, University of Agriculture in Cracow, 30-059 Cracow, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Animals 2022, 12(17), 2271; https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12172271
Submission received: 18 July 2022 / Revised: 26 August 2022 / Accepted: 29 August 2022 / Published: 2 September 2022
(This article belongs to the Section Equids)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:

Simple Summary

This study examined whether the company of goats in a paddock helps to limit the effects of the social isolation of horses. Four short tests were performed, which examined horses in a herd without goats, horses isolated from the herd without goats, horses in a herd with goats, and horses isolated from the herd with goats. The duration of standing, walking, trotting, and cantering, and the horses’ emotions were determined in each test. The results showed that the company of goats in the paddock only partially limited the effects of the social isolation of horses and reduced their restlessness. However, the horses’ emotions change positively only when goats accompany horses in a herd. Therefore, goats can be used for the planned limiting of movements of isolated horses in paddocks and as an element of environment diversification for horses in a herd. The resulting relaxation helps to reduce the horses’ negative behavior.

Abstract

This study aimed to perform a comparative analysis of the horses’ heart rate parameters and locomotor activity in a herd or isolation, with or without the company of goats. Twenty horses were tested in a paddock, accompanied (or not) by three goats. The experiment comprised four tests (a control test of a herd of horses without goats, a horse isolation test without goats, a test of a herd of horses with goats and a test of an isolated horse with goats). The horse’s locomotor behavior, and the HR, RR, rMSSD, LF, HF, and LF/HF were recorded. The data analysis included a 15-min rest, procedural and recovery HR/HRV periods, and a 5-min period at the beginning of the test. The duration of the horses standing in the company of goats increased significantly. The rMSSD parameter was the significantly lowest in the test of a herd of horses with goats. The company of goats in a paddock does not eliminate the emotional effects of the phenomenon. However, the locomotor behavior decreases. Goats in a paddock can provide a positive distraction for horses in a herd as a decrease in emotional excitability can be regarded as having a relaxing impact on a different animal species.

1. Introduction

In both in Poland and in other European countries there is a return to sustainable agriculture [1,2]. In Poland, the activity of ecological farms and agritourism farms using horses as the only workforce plays a significant role in terms of GDP [3]. A similar situation is observed in countries of Western and Southern Europe. It is also worth remembering that horse breeding itself plays a large role in agricultural activity [4]. This breeding is associated with various types of activities carried out by humans. Some of the activities are negative for animals’ welfare, such as the necessity of social isolation [5].
Social isolation has a highly negative impact on gregarious animals [6]. It is known to induce strong stress in many species, which manifests itself in behavioral and physiological changes, e.g., increased vocalization, locomotion, heart rate, or cortisol level [7]. These changes reduce the animal’s utility value and the level of human safety when handling it [8]. In consequence, they weaken the stressed animal and, ultimately, have a crippling effect on it [6,9]. In the case of many methods of horse use, isolation can be reduced the most [10,11]. However, it cannot usually be avoided. The need to isolate horses for multiple reasons results in constantly seeking methods to minimize its effects [10,12,13]. However, one should note that even partial isolation, such as keeping horses in individual boxes, has a negative impact on their welfare [8,14,15]. It does not seem possible to change this, as even a large pasture area is usually an extravagance, and horses grazing in a large group may suffer an injury, which scares their owners for multiple reasons [16,17].
It is necessary to seek new methods to prevent the effects of isolation since the current methods are not fully effective [18,19]. One should note that the social support from the herd is one of the crucial values of gregarious life [20,21]. Social support is usually defined with respect to people [22]. It protects against the health consequences of living under stress, helps to live through a crisis and accelerates the recovery process. A group making up a stable, social unit is found equally often in the animal world [23,24,25]. Horses also form herds with strictly defined social relations [6,26]. Therefore, vicarious social support for individuals without their own herd can be a crucial approach to promoting the physical and mental well-being of farm animals [27]. However, it should be noted that the actual social buffering takes place when the presence of one animal alleviates the stress on another experiencing an unpleasant event and/or subsequently helps the animal to regenerate after it subsides [28].
Since they are not only bred, but also trained, horses often come into relations with humans [29]. These relations take place on multiple levels and concern many disciplines [30,31]. Horses are so sensitive and respond differently to the smell of people that they carry on their clothes and hands, and even to their photographs, the position of their bodies, or the tone of voices [32,33,34,35,36]. They also recognize stress in humans [37]. This is because horses possess a cross-modal ability to recognize individuals based on unique auditory, visual, and olfactory information [38]. Moreover, horses can remember earlier experiences of working with humans or negative relations with them [32]. Therefore, one cannot claim that a person can replace the feeling of the presence of even a micro-herd, although the bond between a horse and a human increases in proportion to the degree of isolation from other animals of the same herd. Examples include relations in unnatural horse herds formed by humans for easier management. Hence, the human’s role in improving the welfare of the horse is crucial.
Therefore, it is worth considering relations between various animal species [39,40]. Companion animals can maintain relations, with cats and dogs being examples of this [41]. Such relations also occur among farm animals, examples of which include lambs and heifers [42], or horses and sheep grazing together [43]. Domestic goats have been suggested by equestrian forums and professional websites as a species which can provide social support to horses during a period of isolation [44,45].
Therefore, a hypothesis was tested that goats decrease horses’ emotional excitability, but only during a period of isolation in a paddock. However, they do not affect horses which are in a paddock in a group. Therefore, the aim of this study was to perform a comparative analysis of the horses’ heart rate parameters and locomotor activity when they were in a herd or in isolation, with or without the company of goats.

2. Materials and Methods

The experiment was conducted at the equestrian center at the University of Life Sciences in Lublin, in the east of Poland (51°13′36.93″ N; 22°38′29.85″ E, altitude: 210 m).

2.1. Horses

The experiment included 20 clinically healthy, warmblood adult horses (ten geldings and ten mares). The horses had been kept for at least 36 months in one stable. Boxes with straw bedding and a size of 3.5 m × 3.5 m, with grilles in the upper parts of the walls, were situated in two rows separated by a passage corridor. Another corridor separated the stable into two sections, with each one containing two rows of five boxes, with each group of boxes opposite each other. There were geldings kept in one section and mares in the other. The horses were fed three times daily with 9 kg hay, 3 kg of a feeding mixture for recreational horses, and 100 mg of mineral and vitamin concentrate. The feed was given in three equal doses. Water and salt cubes were available ad libitum. The horses had been pastured (grazing period) or paddocked for 4–6 h daily in four groups (groups of boxes) for at least 36 months before the beginning of the experiment.
They were ridden on recreational group trips and sporadic individual riding for six days a week, 1–2 h daily. Individual riding was the only time when horses were separated from the herd. Before the tests, the horses had not had any visual or auditory contact with any other animal except dogs and cats.

2.2. Goats

Three two-year-old, clinically healthy, castrated goats with no horns of the Polish white breed were kept loose on straw bedding in one group in a corral with permanent access to a grassy pen. The corral was situated in a separate part of the farm, on a pasture adjacent to the paddock for mares. They had been kept in the same equestrian center as the horses for 18 months, although the horses under study had never had any contact with them. They were fed hay and commercial feed for ruminants. Water and salt cubes were available ad libitum.

2.3. Experiment

The horses were assigned to four groups (two groups of mares and two groups of geldings), with five horses of the same sex kept in the same group of boxes in the stable (group of horses). Therefore, those were the same groups in which the horses were usually taken to the paddock. Before the experiment started, a pentagonal corral for goats (approx. m2) was made on the trapeze-shaped, earth-and-sand paddock (728 m2) known to the horses. During that time, the horses were accustomed to the presence of the corral for goats for three days, 30 min on each day.
The experiment comprised four tests of 15 min each (Figure 1 and Figure 2). The first test, called the horse herd control test, involved letting four fixed groups of five animals into a paddock with a corral for goats. Each of the four groups was let out alternately by sex. The second test, called the horse isolation test, started after two days. The horses were let out individually into the same paddock at different times. This period is regarded as sufficient to assess the impact of social isolation on the animals [46]. On the second day after the isolation test, three goats were let out for 60 min into the corridor of the stable where the horses were kept. The horses were accustomed to their presence during that time.
The third test, called the test of a horse herd with goats, was conducted the next day. It involved letting out all the horses in groups into the test paddock with the goats in the corral. The fourth test was called the test of an isolated horse with goats. It involved letting out individual horses in the company of goats in the corral.
All of the tests were started one hour after the morning feeding of the horses. Every effort was made to avoid the horses’ eye contact with other horses or people. However, the usual farm sounds (tractors operating, people talking, cleaning boxes, etc.) could not be avoided. No cases of the horses’ anxiety, becoming interested, or any behavioral reaction to those events were observed.

2.4. Locomotor Activity

The horses’ locomotor activity during the tests was recorded by five observers, invisible to the horses. They were able to recognize each animal owing to specific features of their coats and white marks on their heads and legs. The horses’ locomotor activities were recorded by registering all the events [47]. The total duration (s) of walking (slow, four-beat gait), trotting and cantering together (brisk, two- or three-beat gait) and the duration of standing were determined.

2.5. Heart Rate and Heart Rate Variability Parameters

The horses’ emotional excitability was determined by analyzing the heart rate (HR) and heart rate variability (HRV). The measurements were performed with a Polar ELECTRO OY, Kempele, Finland, RS800CX type, with an H2 transmitter. The horses were accustomed to the devices. The electrodes were fastened with a strap at the place of a girth, on the left side of the chest, at the heart level. The rubber part of the strap at the place where the electrodes were fixed was covered with large amounts of gel for ECG to optimize conduction and minimize the electric resistance [48]. Subsequently, HR/HRV (heart rate/heart rate variability) monitors, synchronized with specific transmitters, were fixed to elastic straps at the horse’s breastbone level. The data recording began 15 min before the horses went out into the paddock (rest HR/HRV) during the test (procedural HR/HRV15). Additionally, the first five minutes of the test were isolated from the procedural HR/HRV period (procedural HR/HRV5). The recording was completed 15 min after the horses returned to the stable (recovery HR/HRV).
The HR monitoring data were transmitted to the computer via an IrDA USB 2.0 Adapter peripheral and subsequently analyzed in PolarProTrainer 5 (v41.2, Kempele, Finland). Low-power filters were applied to eliminate single artifacts. The following parameters were analyzed–HR (beats per minute)–heart rate,–RR interval (ms)–intervals between successive R waves in the QRS complex, rMSSD (ms)–root mean square of successive differences between consecutive RR intervals: time analysis parameter, HF (ms2)–high–frequency spectrum power component (0.15–0.4 Hz), LF (ms2)–low–frequency spectrum power component (0.04–0.15 Hz), LF/HF (%)–low–frequency spectrum power to high-frequency spectrum power ratio, indicating the sympathetic/parasympathetic balance in ANS (Autonomic Nervous System) [49]. Pursuant to the recommendations of the Task Force of the European Society of Cardiology and the North American Society of Pacing and Electrophysiology [50], the duration of each measurement for short-term analyses was identical. It lasted 15 min, including rest HR/HRV, procedural HR/HRV15, and recovery HR/HRV.

2.6. Statistical Methods

The statistical analyses were performed with a commercial analytical software package–SAS 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA) [51].
The feature distribution analysis was based on the Kolmogorov–Smirnov, Cramer-von Mises, and Anderson–Darling tests at α = 0.05. The main descriptive statistics for the features were presented: number of observations, M—arithmetic mean, SE—standard error of the mean, SD—standard deviation, V—coefficient of variance, Me—median, Min—minimal and Max—maximum value of an observation.
The significance of the impact of constant factors on the features under study was verified by the multifactorial analysis of variance (GLM procedure) with the following model:
Yijklm = μ + di + pj + wk + eijklm
where: Y is the feature under analysis, μ the mean for the feature, d theconstant impact of the test day, p the constant impact of the animal’s sex, w the constant impact of the horse’s age, and e the remainder, unexplained by the experiment (error).
The significance of the differences between the means was determined with Tukey’s multiple comparison test. The final results are presented as means with standard deviations of the means (SD).

3. Results

Table 1 presents the main descriptive statistics for each feature under analysis.
For nearly 30% of the features under study, a significant impact of the subsequent test factor was present (Table 2). This group included all of the three locomotor features, three mean values of the parameters from the procedural15 period (HR—heart rate, rMSSD—root mean square of successive differences between consecutive RR intervals, LF/HF—low-frequency spectrum power to high-frequency spectrum power ratio), three from the recovery period (HR—heart rate, rMSSD—root mean square of successive differences between consecutive RR intervals, LF–low–frequency spectrum power) and one parameter from the rest period (LF/HF–low–frequency spectrum power to high-frequency spectrum power ratio).
The duration of standing in the paddock was the significantly longest in the test of horse herd with goats and the test of an isolated horse with goats (Table 3). This feature had the lowest value in the horse isolation test. The duration of standing in the control test had an average value. The duration of walking was significantly longer than the others during the horse herd control test, and the shortest was in the horse isolation test. The values were average in the other two tests. The trotting/cantering duration was significantly longer than the others during the horse isolation test. The differences in the other features were not significant.
The resting HR did not differ significantly during consecutive tests (Table 4). The procedural HR5 was significantly higher than the others in the horse isolation test and in the test of isolated horses with goats. The procedural HR15 was the highest in the test of isolated horses with goats. The value was similar to that in the horse isolation test. The lowest procedural HR15 was observed in the test of a horse herd with goats. It was similar to that in the horse herd control test. The values in tests I and II were also similar. The recovery HR was the highest in the test of an isolated horse with goats and in the horse isolation test. The latter value was also similar to the value observed in the horse herd control test and in the test of a horse herd with goats.
There were no significant differences between the rest RR in consecutive tests (Table 5). The procedural RR5 was significantly higher than the others in the horse herd control test and in the horse herd with goats test. The procedural RR15 was significantly higher than the others in the horse herd control test and in the test of horse herd with goats. The latter value was also similar to that observed during the isolated horse test. Furthermore, it was similar to the value in the test of an isolated horse with goats.
The rest rMSSD and procedural rMSSD5 did not differ significantly during consecutive tests (Table 6). For the procedural rMSSD15 and recovery rMSSD, values higher than the others were observed in the horse herd with goats test and in the horse herd control test, with the latter value also similar to those found in the isolated horse test and in the test of an isolated horse with goats.
The remaining LF, procedural LF5 and LF15 did not differ significantly during consecutive tests (Table 7). Significant differences were observed for the recovery LF. The value for the test of horse herd with goats was the highest, and value for the test of an isolated horse with goats was the lowest. The values of this parameter were close to the highest and the lowest values in the other two tests.
The LF/HF value for the test of a horse herd with goats and one for the test of an isolated horse with goats was the highest (Table 8). For the latter test, this parameter was also similar to the one in the horse herd control test and in the isolated horse test.
Table 9 shows the features significantly affected by the sex factor. The duration of a mare standing during the tests was significantly shorter than a gelding standing (Table 10). The duration of walking proved to be significantly longer in the mares compared with the geldings. The recovery HR (heart rate) in the mares was significantly higher than in the geldings. It was the opposite in the case of the recovery RR (RR interval).

4. Discussion

The experimental design applied in the study significantly diversified the locomotor activity of the horses. The presence of goats in the paddock prolonged the standing duration of horses, regardless of whether the horses were in a herd or isolated. This time was the shortest when horses were isolated without the company of goats. The walking duration was the shortest when the horses were isolated without the company of goats. As expected, the trotting and cantering duration was then much longer than in the other situations. Interestingly, horses in a herd with or without goats, or isolated horses with goats, walked, trotted, or cantered during a comparable time. On the other hand, no impact of the goats on the locomotor activity of horses in a herd was observed. This may mean that the presence of other animals of the same species is essential. Therefore, it could be hypothesized that the company of goats can reduce horses’ locomotor activity, but only during their isolation. However, it seems that these findings can be seen as satisfactory in minimizing the effects of social isolation of horses. Krueger et al. [52] report that social isolation is disadvantageous to gregarious animals. Specific behavior then becomes more intensive, such behavior including increased locomotor activity, among many features. Let it be emphasized at this stage of research that an analysis of the locomotor features provides grounds for suggesting a positive impact of the goat company on minimizing the effects of horse social isolation.
However, it seems interesting how the experiment proposed in this study affected the horses’ emotional excitability. Social isolation triggers negative emotions, which manifest themselves mainly by an HR (heart rate) increase and a decrease in the parameters indicative of parasympathetic activity of the ANS (Autonomic Nervous System) [53]. These findings proved to be partially different from those presented for the locomotor features. The difference is visible for the HR (heart rate) and RR (intervals between successive R waves in the QRS complex). Social isolation caused unwanted changes in these parameters regardless of whether the company of goats was present or not. This was the most manifest during the first five minutes of the horses’ stay in the paddock. The parameters from 15 min of the test and from the recovery period were not so unambiguous, although they confirmed the differences present during the five minutes. Therefore, it may be suggested that the animals experience strong emotions during the first moments of isolation, which is confirmed by the findings of studies conducted by Moons et al. [54] and Mal et al. [55]. The horses’ emotional excitability is stabilized during subsequent minutes, although the stabilization is not significant enough to bring the organism to the resting state during the 15 min of the recovery period. Therefore, it can be claimed that the company of goats does not block the growth of the emotional excitability in isolated horses. Perhaps a longer time spent with goats by the isolated horses than that used in the study would have given different results. However, our research initially focused on the phenomenon of short-term social isolation. Interestingly, the goats’ company calms horses in a herd. Horses probably perceive those animals as a type of distraction from the pasture behavior. Patkowski et al. [56] are of a similar opinion.
Regarding the study hypothesis, it can be partially corroborated at this stage. The company of goats certainly limits the locomotor activity of the isolated horses, although, unfortunately, it does not decrease the emotional excitability, which is a consequence of isolation. The current findings are consistent with those published by other authors, who point out the discrepancies between the situational behavior demonstrated by horses and the emotions experienced at the time [57,58]. Moreover, according to Lenoir et al. [59] and Rietmann et al. [60], HR (heart rate) and RR (intervals between successive R waves in the QRS complex) are sometimes difficult to interpret due to factors other than emotional factors, which can change the values under study. In contrast, the parameters which clearly show the activity of both components of the autonomic nervous system are beneficial in this case [49]. Not all the HRV (heart rate variability) parameters may have been significantly different with respect to the subsequent test factor, but the findings allow for a sufficiently detailed analysis of the changes in this regard. First of all, the factor in question diversified the rMSSD (root mean square of successive differences between consecutive RR intervals), i.e., the parameter indicating the activity of the parasympathetic part of the ANS (Autonomic Nervous System), and also LF (low-frequency spectrum power), which indicates the activity of the sympathetic part of the ANS [53]. This group also included LF/HF (low-frequency spectrum power to high-frequency spectrum power ratio) as information on the balance of the ANS [61]. The sympathetic system activity increases considerably under stress, and it is associated with adrenaline and noradrenalin secretion, which accelerate the heart rate. Acetylcholine, whose level grows with increasing activity of the parasympathetic nervous system, has the opposite action [62]. Therefore, hormonal reactions are accompanied by an increase in the sympathetic system’s advantage over the parasympathetic system, which manifests itself as an increase in the LF/HF ratio.
Therefore, the group of HRV (heart rate variability) parameters examined in this study can be regarded as sufficient to determine the horses’ emotional excitability in different variants of this experiment. At the start of discussing those parameters from rMSSD (root mean square of successive differences between consecutive RR intervals), one should emphasize that significant differences were present only within the procedural and recovery periods. It is manifest that the horse isolation, regardless of whether it was with or without the company of goats, reduced the sympathetic activity of the ANS (Autonomic Nervous System) considerably. Therefore, one cannot confirm the positive impact of goats on horses’ emotions during the latter’s isolation, which should be regarded as an extremely disadvantageous phenomenon in horses’ lives. This finding has been corroborated by other authors [63]. The current study found similar results in the LF/HF (low-frequency spectrum power to high-frequency spectrum power ratio), but only for the whole test. It is notable that the company of goats had a noticeable, positive impact on the emotions of horses staying in a herd in the paddock. The rMSSD had the highest values during the test and after it was completed, which may be indicative of the considerable relaxation of the horses. Although the findings may not corroborate the hypothesis proposed in this study, they shed new light on the positive impact on the horses’ emotions. Introducing new animal species into a herd of horses can alleviate bad emotions, tension, and hierarchical disturbances.
Therefore, social support provided by goats to animals in a herd formed by humans to make its management easier is possible. Problems related to the isolation of horses are not solved in an emotional sphere, although the effect is noticeable from the behavioral point of view. The results may be interpreted in this manner, although they are not fully confirmed for LF (low-frequency spectrum power). First, the differences appeared only during the recovery period. Second, the highest value was observed (paradoxically) during the test of the herd with goats, and the lowest value was observed during the test of an isolated horse with goats. This result is therefore confirmed by those concerning locomotor features. At the same time, it is completely inconsistent with the other heart rate parameters when it is analyzed as a determinant of excitation from the sympathetic part of the ANS (Autonomic Nervous System) [64]. However, when this parameter is analyzed with respect to the excitation both of the sympathetic and parasympathetic systems [65], the results can be regarded as largely consistent with those concerning the other parameters.

5. Conclusions

The company of goats in a paddock does not provide full social support for isolated horses, as it does not eliminate the emotional effects of the phenomenon. The locomotor behavior decreases, which may contribute to planned restriction of horse movements when they have to be kept in a paddock individually. Goats in a corral in a paddock can provide a positive distraction for horses in a herd. A decrease in emotional excitability, which is then observed, can be regarded as a relaxing impact on a different animal species.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.W.; methodology, I.J. and A.W.; software, E.T. and E.P.; validation, I.W.; formal analysis, B.K.; investigation, E.T.; resources, I.W.; data curation, T.P.; writing original draft preparation, A.W.; writing, review and editing, I.J.; visualization, W.J. and E.T.; su-pervision, I.J. and J.Ł.; project administration, I.J.; funding acquisition, J.Ł. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Local Ethics Committee for Animal Experiments acting at the University of Life Sciences in Lublin, Poland (no 51/2021; dated 19 July 2021).

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Hammer, M.; Bonow, M.; Petersson, M. The role of horse keeping in transforming peri-urban landscapes: A case study from metropolitan Stockholm, Sweden. Nor. Geogr. Tidsskr. Nor. J. Geogr. 2017, 71, 146–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Jezierska-Thöle, A.; Gwiaździńska-Goraj, M.; Wiśniewski, Ł. Current Status and Prospects for Organic Agriculture in Poland. Quaest. Geogr. 2017, 36, 23–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Topczewska, J.; Rogowska, A.K.; Ormian, M. A study into horses use in organic farming in the context of sustainable development in south-east Poland. Roczniki 2017, 2016, 1230-2017-441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Rzekęć, A.; Vial, C.; Bigot, G. Green Assets of Equines in the European Context of the Ecological Transition of Agriculture. Animals 2020, 10, 106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. 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 Vet. Educ. 2020, 32, 71–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Henderson, A.J.Z. Don’t Fence Me In: Managing Psychological Well Being for Elite Performance Horses. J. Appl. Anim. Welf. Sci. 2007, 10, 309–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Lansade, L.; Bouissou, M.-F.; Erhard, H.W. Reactivity to isolation and association with conspecifics: A temperament trait stable across time and situations. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2008, 109, 355–373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Yarnell, K.; Hall, C.; Royle, C.; Walker, S.L. Domesticated horses differ in their behavioural and physiological responses to isolated and group housing. Physiol. Behav. 2015, 143, 51–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Roberts, K.; Hemmings, A.J.; McBride, S.D.; Parker, M.O. Causal factors of oral versus locomotor stereotypy in the horse. J. Vet. Behav. 2017, 20, 37–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Jørgensen, G.H.; Fremstad, K.E.; Mejdell, C.M.; Bøe, K.E. Separating a horse from the social group for riding or training purposes: A descriptive study of human-horse interactions. Anim. Welf. 2011, 20, 271–279. [Google Scholar]
  11. Bourjade, M.; Moulinot, M.; Henry, S.; Richard-Yris, M.-A.; Hausberger, M. Could adults be used to improve social skills of young horses, Equus caballus? Dev. Psychobiol. 2008, 50, 408–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. McAfee, L.M.; Mills, D.S.; Cooper, J.J. The use of mirrors for the control of stereotypic weaving behaviour in the stabled horse. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2002, 78, 159–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Mills, D.; Davenport, K. The effect of a neighbouring conspecific versus the use of a mirror for the control of stereotypic weaving behaviour in the stabled horse. Anim. Sci. 2002, 74, 95–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Keeling, L.; Bøe, K.; Christensen, J.; Hyyppä, S.; Jansson, H.; Jørgensen, G.; Ladewig, J.; Mejdell, C.; Särkijärvi, S.; Søndergaard, E.; et al. Injury incidence, reactivity and ease of handling of horses kept in groups: A matched case control study in four Nordic countries. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2016, 185, 59–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Erber, R.; Wulf, M.; Aurich, J.; Rose-Meierhöfer, S.; Hoffmann, G.; von Lewinski, M.; Möstl, E.; Aurich, C. Stress Response of Three-year-old Horse Mares to Changes in Husbandry System During Initial Equestrian Training. J. Equine Vet. Sci. 2013, 33, 1088–1094. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Winskill, L.; Waran, N.K.; Channing, C.; Young, R. Stereotypies in the stabled horse: Causes, treatments and prevention. Curr. Sci. 1995, 69, 310–316. [Google Scholar]
  17. Luescher, U.A.; McKeown, D.B.; Halip, J. Reviewing the causes of obsessive-compulsive disorders in horses. Vet. Med. 1991, 86, 527–530. [Google Scholar]
  18. Bulens, A.; Van Beirendonck, S.; Van Thielen, J.; Driessen, B. The enriching effect of non-commercial items in stabled horses. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2013, 143, 46–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Cooper, J.; McGreevy, P. Stereotypic behaviour in the stabled horse: Causes, effects and prevention without compromising horse welfare. In The Welfare of Horses; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2007; pp. 99–124. [Google Scholar]
  20. Stanley, C.R.; Mettke-Hofmann, C.; Hager, R.; Shultz, S. Social stability in semiferal ponies: Networks show interannual stability alongside seasonal flexibility. Anim. Behav. 2018, 136, 175–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Krueger, K. Social ecology of horses. In Ecology of Social Evolution; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2008; pp. 195–206. [Google Scholar]
  22. Cobb, S. Social Support as a Moderator of Life Stress. Psychosom. Med. 1976, 38, 300–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Fischer, J.; Kopp, G.H.; Pesco, F.D.; Goffe, A.; Hammerschmidt, K.; Kalbitzer, U.; Klapproth, M.; Maciej, P.; Ndao, I.; Patzelt, A.; et al. Charting the neglected West: The social system of Guinea baboons. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 2017, 162, 15–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Gero, S.; Gordon, J.; Whitehead, H. Individualized social preferences and long-term social fidelity between social units of sperm whales. Anim. Behav. 2015, 102, 15–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Wittemyer, G.; Douglas-Hamilton, I.; Getz, W. The socioecology of elephants: Analysis of the processes creating multitiered social structures. Anim. Behav. 2005, 69, 1357–1371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Hartmann, E.; Søndergaard, E.; Keeling, L.J. Keeping horses in groups: A review. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2012, 136, 77–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Rault, J.-L. Friends with benefits: Social support and its relevance for farm animal welfare. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2012, 136, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Ricci-Bonot, C.; Romero, T.; Nicol, C.; Mills, D. Social buffering in horses is influenced by context but not by the familiarity and habituation of a companion. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 8862. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Adamczyk, K. Dairy cattle welfare as a result of human-animal relationship—A review. Ann. Anim. Sci. 2018, 18, 601–622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Gepts, P.; Famula, T.R.; Bettinger, R.L.; Brush, S.B.; Damania, A.B.; Mc Guire, P.E.; Qualset, C.O. (Eds.) Biodiversity in Agriculture: Domestication, Evolution, and Sustainability, 1st ed.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2012; 606p. [Google Scholar]
  31. Alcorta, C.S.; Sosis, R. Ritual, emotion, and sacred symbols. Hum. Nat. 2005, 16, 323–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Merkies, K.; Franzin, O. Enhanced Understanding of Horse–Human Interactions to Optimize Welfare. Animals 2021, 11, 1347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Sabiniewicz, A.; Tarnowska, K.; Świątek, R.; Sorokowski, P.; Laska, M. Olfactory-based interspecific recognition of human emotions: Horses (Equus ferus caballus) can recognize fear and happiness body odour from humans (Homo sapiens). Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2020, 230, 105072. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Trösch, M.; Cuzol, F.; Parias, C.; Calandreau, L.; Nowak, R.; Lansade, L. Horses Categorize Human Emotions Cross-Modally Based on Facial Expression and Non-Verbal Vocalizations. Animals 2019, 9, 862. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Proops, L.; Grounds, K.; Smith, A.V.; McComb, K. Animals Remember Previous Facial Expressions that Specific Humans Have Exhibited. Curr. Biol. 2018, 28, 1428–1432.e4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Smith, A.V.; Proops, L.; Grounds, K.; Wathan, J.; McComb, K. Functionally relevant responses to human facial expressions of emotion in the domestic horse (Equus caballus). Biol. Lett. 2016, 12, 20150907. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  37. Merkies, K.; McKechnie, M.J.; Zakrajsek, E. Behavioural and physiological responses of therapy horses to mentally traumatized humans. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2018, 205, 61–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Proops, L.; McComb, K.; Reby, D. Cross-modal individual recognition in domestic horses (Equus caballus). Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2009, 106, 947–951. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Kiffner, C.; Kioko, J.; Leweri, C.; Krause, S. Seasonal Patterns of Mixed Species Groups in Large East African Mammals. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e113446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Schmitt, M.H.; Stears, K.; Wilmers, C.C.; Shrader, A.M. Determining the relative importance of dilution and detection for zebra foraging in mixed-species herds. Anim. Behav. 2014, 96, 151–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Feuerstein, N.; Terkel, J. Interrelationships of dogs (Canis familiaris) and cats (Felis catus L.) living under the same roof. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2008, 113, 150–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Anderson, D.; Hulet, C.; Smith, J.; Shupe, W.; Murray, L. Bonding of young sheep to heifers. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 1987, 19, 31–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Pluta, M.; Patkowski, K.; Gasinska, B.; Bryczek, E. Behavior and interactions in and between herds of Polish Konik horse and Uhruska sheep during mixed-species grazing practice. Ann. Univ. Mariae Curie Skłodowska Sect. EE Zootech. 2013, 31, 49–58. [Google Scholar]
  44. Diedericks, A.; Are Goats Good Companions for Horses. Equestrian Space. 2020. Available online: https://equestrianspace.com/are-goats-good-companions-for-horses/ (accessed on 28 May 2022).
  45. FEI. A Horse’s Best Friend. 2018. Available online: https://www.fei.org/stories/lifestyle/my-equestrian-life/horses-animal-companions (accessed on 30 May 2022).
  46. 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Martin, P.; Bateson, P.P.G. Measuring Behaviour: An Introductory Guide, 3rd ed.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Kovács, L.; Tőzsér, J.; Kézér, F.; Ruff, F.; Aubin-Wodala, M.; Albert, E.; Choukeir, A.; Szelényi, Z.; Szenci, O. Heart rate and heart rate variability in multiparous dairy cows with unassisted calvings in the periparturient period. Physiol. Behav. 2015, 139, 281–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. von Borell, E.; Langbein, J.; Després, G.; Hansen, S.; Leterrier, C.; Marchant-Forde, J.; Marchant-Forde, R.; Minero, M.; Mohr, E.; Prunier, A.; et al. Heart rate variability as a measure of autonomic regulation of cardiac activity for assessing stress and welfare in farm animals—A review. Physiol. Behav. 2007, 92, 293–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Laborde, S.; Mosley, E.; Thayer, J.F. Heart Rate Variability and Cardiac Vagal Tone in Psychophysiological Research—Recommendations for Experiment Planning, Data Analysis, and Data Reporting. Front. Psychol. 2017, 8, 213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. SAS 9.4, version 9.4; SAS Institute Inc.: Cary, NC, USA, 2021.
  52. Krueger, K.; Esch, L.; Farmer, K.; Marr, I. Basic Needs in Horses?—A Literature Review. Animals 2021, 11, 1798. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Malik, M. Heart rate variability. Curr. Opin. Cardiol. 1998, 13, 36–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Moons, C.; Laughlin, K.; Zanella, A. Effects of short-term maternal separations on weaning stress in foals. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2005, 91, 321–335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Mal, M.; Friend, T.; Lay, D.; Vogelsang, S.; Jenkins, O. Physiological responses of mares to short term confinement and social isolation. J. Equine Vet. Sci. 1991, 11, 96–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Patkowski, K.; Pluta, M.; Lipiec, A.; Greguła-Kania, M.; Gruszecki, T.M. Foraging Behavior Patterns of Sheep and Horses Under a Mixed Species Grazing System. J. Appl. Anim. Welf. Sci. 2019, 22, 357–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Janczarek, I.; Wilk, I.; Stachurska, A.; Krakowski, L.; Liss, M. Cardiac activity and salivary cortisol concentration of leisure horses in response to the presence of an audience in the arena. J. Vet. Behav. 2019, 29, 31–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Wilk, I.; Janczarek, I. Relationship between behavior and cardiac response to round pen training. J. Vet. Behav. 2015, 10, 231–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Lenoir, A.; Trachsel, D.S.; Younes, M.; Barrey, E.; Robert, C. Agreement between Electrocardiogram and Heart Rate Meter Is Low for the Measurement of Heart Rate Variability during Exercise in Young Endurance Horses. Front. Vet. Sci. 2017, 4, 170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Rietmann, T.; Stuart, A.; Bernasconi, P.; Stauffacher, M.; Auer, J.; Weishaupt, M. Assessment of mental stress in warmblood horses: Heart rate variability in comparison to heart rate and selected behavioural parameters. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2004, 88, 121–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Janczarek, I.; Kędzierski, W.; Wilk, I.; Kolstrung, R.; Strzelec, K.; Stachurska, A. Autonomic nervous system activity in purebred Arabian horses evaluated according to the low frequency and high frequency spectrum versus racing performance. Acta Vet. Brno 2017, 85, 355–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Lindh, B.; Hökfelt, T. Chapter 20 Structural and functional aspects of acetylcholine peptide coexistence in the autonomic nervous system. Prog. Brain Res. 1990, 84, 175–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Kay, R.; Hall, C. The use of a mirror reduces isolation stress in horses being transported by trailer. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2009, 116, 237–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Appelhans, B.M.; Luecken, L.J. Heart Rate Variability as an Index of Regulated Emotional Responding. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 2006, 10, 229–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Pumprla, J.; Howorka, K.; Groves, D.; Chester, M.; Nolan, J. Functional assessment of heart rate variability: Physiological basis and practical applications. Int. J. Cardiol. 2002, 84, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Animals 12 02271 g001 550
Figure 1. Course of the experiment.
Figure 1. Course of the experiment.
Animals 12 02271 g001
Animals 12 02271 g002 550
Figure 2. Interactions between a horse and a goat during the experiment.
Figure 2. Interactions between a horse and a goat during the experiment.
Animals 12 02271 g002
Table
Table 1. Main descriptive statistics for the features under analysis.
Table 1. Main descriptive statistics for the features under analysis.
VariableNMSESDVMeMinMax
Standing (s)80478.1615.07134.8018,169.8828.19483.5094.00
Walk (s)80353.3412.18108.9211,864.1530.83351.50129.00
Trotting/cantering (s)8068.5011.64104.0910,833.92151.9514.500.00
Rest HR (b.p.m.)8037.250.332.938.577.8638.0030.00
ProceduralHR5 (b.p.m.)8063.592.5222.52506.9535.4156.5037.00
Procedural HR15 (b.p.m.)8062.442.2920.47419.1032.7955.0037.00
Recovery HR (b.p.m.)8055.212.0117.94321.9232.5051.0034.00
Rest RR (ms)801619.1114.23127.2716,198.057.861594.001265.00
ProceduralRR5 (ms)801038.0032.69292.4285,511.4728.171041.50399.00
Procedural RR15 (ms)801057.8431.57282.3879,738.4026.691076.00476.33
Recovery RR (ms)801182.7035.28315.5399,556.1626.681181.00507.00
Rest rMSSD (ms)80106.153.2429.00840.7127.32101.6510.90
Procedural
rMSSD5 (ms)		8077.585.5149.322432.7363.5867.254.30
Procedural rMSSD15 (ms)8073.994.5540.741659.4255.0668.378.87
Recovery rMSSD (ms)8074.974.9244.021937.9358.7273.1513.50
Rest LF (ms2)803931.74237.032120.104,494,815.5253.923533.6851.15
Procedural
LF5 (ms2)		804019.45391.933505.5612,288,924.7387.212934.9843.84
Procedural LF15 (ms2)803895.49322.252882.338,307,812.9873.993046.94225.38
Recovery LF (ms2)803612.34347.243105.779,645,799.1985.982906.99103.90
Rest HF (ms2)802708.28179.551605.922,578,976.3259.302194.9220.70
ProceduralHF5 (ms2)802361.73388.503474.8512,074,564.67147.131108.599.16
Procedural HF15 (ms2)801972.72244.082183.124,765,997.69110.671226.8123.89
Recovery HF (ms2)802256.28384.773441.5111,844,020.80152.531354.5433.52
Rest LF/HF (%)80148.266.5758.763452.3439.63148.0037.30
Procedural
LF/HF5 (%)		80338.6832.03286.5082,080.0884.59243.0036.00
Procedural LF/HF15 (%)80365.5726.44236.5055,930.8364.69284.6835.50
Recovery LF/HF (%)80359.3356.37504.15254,166.12140.30230.0522.20
Table
Table 2. The features for which a significant impact of the subsequent test factor was observed (p ≤ max 0.05).
Table 2. The features for which a significant impact of the subsequent test factor was observed (p ≤ max 0.05).
FeatureDFSquare Sum Type 3Mean SquareValue of FPr. > F
Standing3328,262.2375109,420.74587.690.0002
Walking3139,415.737546,471.91254.560.0055
Trotting/cantering3571,903.3000190,634.433351.74<0.0001
Procedural HR1539007.2611113002.4203709.69<0.0001
Recovery HR34784.4375001594.8125006.120.0009
Procedural rMSSD15314,621.690284873.896763.220.0276
Recovery rMSSD327,211.622509070.540835.660.0015
Recovery LF387,147,953.3729,049,317.793.330.0241
Rest LF/HF341,438.3803713,812.793464.650.0050
Procedural LF/HF153633,809.6458211,269.88194.210.0083
Table
Table 3. Locomotor features in consecutive tests.
Table 3. Locomotor features in consecutive tests.
FeatureStandingWalkingTrotting/Cantering
TestMeanSDMeanSDMeanSD
I458.35 AB82.04419.15 A81.2122.50 B20.22
II381.90 B144.63303.20 B108.79214.90 A111.62
III533.25 A149.12346.70 AB127.2020.05 B35.13
IV539.15 A91.59344.30 AB85.9216.55 B29.06
The means marked with different capital letters (A, B) are significantly different at α = 0.01. I: control test of a horse herd, II: horse isolation test, III: test of a horse herd with goats, IV: test of isolated horse with goats.
Table
Table 4. HR (heart rate) during consecutive tests.
Table 4. HR (heart rate) during consecutive tests.
ParameterRest HRProcedural HR5Procedural HR15Recovery HR
TestMeanSDMeanSDMeanSDMeanSD
I36.002.0555.70 B14.6156.00 BC9.8249.85 B9.04
II37.702.3672.50 A25.9569.83 AB22.8458.80 AB19.82
III37.152.5049.65 B4.6148.67 C4.9646.20 B6.35
IV38.154.1176.50 A25.9075.27 A25.0266.00 A23.91
The means marked with different capital letters (A, B) are significantly different at α = 0.01. I: control test of a horse herd, II: horse isolation test, III: test of a horse herd with goats, IV: test of isolated horse with goats.
Table
Table 5. RR (RR interval) during consecutive tests.
Table 5. RR (RR interval) during consecutive tests.
ParameterRest RRProcedural RR5Procedural RR15Recovery RR
TestMeanSDMeanSDMeanSDMeanSD
I1670.40101.201142.30 A277.121121.87 AB194.201241.85 AB225.07
II1595.6096.80928.15 B310.91959.80 BC312.871128.65 B361.71
III1620.55121.981215.15 A132.991251.50 A144.961323.75 A182.03
IV1589.90169.14866.40 B276.07898.20 C306.901036.55 B386.18
The means marked with different capital letters (A, B) are significantly different at α = 0.01. I: control test of a horse herd, II: horse isolation test, III: test of a horse herd with goats, IV: test of an isolated horse with goats.
Table
Table 6. rMSSD (root mean square of successive differences between consecutive RR intervals) during consecutive tests.
Table 6. rMSSD (root mean square of successive differences between consecutive RR intervals) during consecutive tests.
ParameterRest rMSSDProcedural rMSSD5Procedural rMSSD15Recovery rMSSD
TestMeanSDMeanSDMeanSDMeanSD
I97.7423.7179.1933.0873.14 AB29.7477.43 AB35.01
II105.0122.4665.6651.0462.89 B42.1463.78 B42.10
III114.9238.0992.5137.7196.33 A34.76103.75 A42.46
IV106.9528.6472.9667.7163.61 B47.5554.94 B42.71
The means marked with different capital letters (A, B) are significantly different at α = 0.01. I: control test of a horse herd, II: horse isolation test, III: test of a horse herd with goats, IV: test of an isolated horse with goats.
Table
Table 7. LF (low-frequency spectrum power) during consecutive tests.
Table 7. LF (low-frequency spectrum power) during consecutive tests.
ParameterRest LFProcedural LF5Procedural LF15Recovery LF
TestMeanSDMeanSDMeanSDMeanSD
I3142.551919.713778.313144.743928.053131.713494.14 AB3453.20
II3982.102053.943877.923177.723664.582627.374041.42 AB3644.05
III4721.392313.174746.333727.344769.702791.974890.61 A2445.00
IV3880.902029.023675.254056.183219.632948.682023.21 B2082.74
The means marked with different capital letters (A, B) are significantly different at α = 0.01. I: control test of a horse herd, II: horse isolation test, III: test of a horse herd with goats, IV: test of an isolated horse with goats.
Table
Table 8. LF/HF (low-frequency spectrum power to high-frequency spectrum power ratio) during consecutive tests.
Table 8. LF/HF (low-frequency spectrum power to high-frequency spectrum power ratio) during consecutive tests.
ParameterRest LF/HFProcedural LF/HF5Procedural LF/HF15Recovery LF/HF
TestMeanSDMeanSDMeanSDMeanSD
I125.74 B51.96276.89171.72346.85 AB212.12274.80142.77
II136.66 B43.01432.75400.82449.82 A304.44525.83882.33
III185.91 A62.51243.48137.85227.70 B68.58203.2897.74
IV144.73 AB60.96401.61324.17437.92 A238.35433.40424.55
The means marked with different capital letters (A, B) are significantly different at α = 0.01. I: control test of a horse herd, II: horse isolation test, III: test of a horse herd with goats, IV: test of an isolated horse with goats.
Table
Table 9. The features found to be significantly affected by the sex factor (p ≤ 0.1).
Table 9. The features found to be significantly affected by the sex factor (p ≤ 0.1).
DFSquare Sum Type 3Mean SquareValue of FPr. > F
Standing154,123.5054,123.503.800.0550
Walking134,804.0534,804.053.420.0686
Recovery HR1743.77743.772.850.0955
Recovery RR1319,594.41319,594.413.740.0570
Table
Table 10. Significantly differing features within the sex factor.
Table 10. Significantly differing features within the sex factor.
FeatureStandingWalkingRecovery HRRecovery RR
SexMeanSDMeanSDMeanSDMeanSD
Mares449.45 b124.17377.83 a95.5459.28 a19.691108.28 b313.22
Geldings506.88 a140.34328.85 b116.9451.15 b15.191257.13 a303.63
The means marked with different lowercase (a, b) are significantly different at α = 0.05.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Wiśniewska, A.; Janczarek, I.; Tkaczyk, E.; Wilk, I.; Janicka, W.; Próchniak, T.; Kaczmarek, B.; Pokora, E.; Łuszczyński, J. Minimizing the Effects of Social Isolation of Horses by Contact with Animals of a Different Species: The Domestic Goat as an Example. Animals 2022, 12, 2271. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12172271

AMA Style

Wiśniewska A, Janczarek I, Tkaczyk E, Wilk I, Janicka W, Próchniak T, Kaczmarek B, Pokora E, Łuszczyński J. Minimizing the Effects of Social Isolation of Horses by Contact with Animals of a Different Species: The Domestic Goat as an Example. Animals. 2022; 12(17):2271. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12172271

Chicago/Turabian Style

Wiśniewska, Anna, Iwona Janczarek, Ewelina Tkaczyk, Izabela Wilk, Wiktoria Janicka, Tomasz Próchniak, Beata Kaczmarek, Elżbieta Pokora, and Jarosław Łuszczyński. 2022. "Minimizing the Effects of Social Isolation of Horses by Contact with Animals of a Different Species: The Domestic Goat as an Example" Animals 12, no. 17: 2271. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12172271

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop