This is a video everyone should watch. The still well established use of whips in racing and all horse sports, as well as our equestrian leisure activities, is a damning indictment of our consideration of the horse’s welfare in our entertainment by them and relationship with them. If you can’t train a horse without striking it with a whip, then you can’t train a horse at all, only bully one. Violence is not necessary for performance and is detrimental to learning and cognition (google.co.uk/scholar can provide you which much scientific evidence should you wish to find it).
Here are some musings I have on being a veggie, but first lets clear up the inevitable questions –
Q. Oh my god, soap box vegetarians are so preachy, why are you trying to convert me to your hippy ways?
A. I am not in the business of converting anyone to anything. These are my life choices, I am far to busy/lazy to make yours for you as well, so until my mind control ray device is finished … *cough* .. erm, I mean …so lets live and let live.
Q. Aren’t you going to try and emotionally blackmail me into taking up the diet of a rabbit?
A. Again, no, if something I say affects you emotionally that seems like something you need to explore.
Q. OK, so you’re sure you’re not trying to convert me?
A.Nope, no conversions going on here. Not even subliminal messages, neurolinguistic programming, psychological tricks or hypnosis… aren’t I being a good little neuroscientist!
So on we go to my half autobiographical ramblings. It’s hard to believe, but I was a very naive and positive preteen, I know, what happened right?! This pessimistic misanthrope bears no resemblance to that sweet girl who thought that really all humans are nice people with good intentions. However, what that child and I do have in common is a willfulness, or if you ask my very patient parents – stubbornness. So when aged 11, I saw some documentaries on farm animal welfare some of my emerging world view was shattered. To this day the sound of pigs screaming can make me feel sick. Obviously I knew in some abstract sense where meat came from, but like most people were and are, I was very removed from the reality of where my food came from. I had assumed that the animals were kept like my beloved pets and died painlessly after a well enjoyed existence frolicking in a field. As I read and watched more it became painfully obvious to me that this was not the case. These documentaries were not vile exceptions, they were very much the norm (80% of meat in Europe is factory farmed). So I went home one day –
“Mum, Dad , I want to be vegetarian.”
After a brief shocked “Er.. ok *Lemming, why?”
I like to think what followed was an articulate and logical explanation of my findings regarding farms and animal welfare, but I was 11 and so, lets face it, it probably went like this…
“Animals hurt, bad people … sad animals, make me sad.”
I was not an articulate child despite being reasonably bright. Anyway, I made enough fuss that my parents eventually agreed, probably suspecting it was a phase. They have thoroughly given up on the phase idea now and are incredibly supportive.
Like most decisions a person makes this one was a combination of emotion and reason. I am not Vulcan after all, despite my best efforts there is always a bit of Klingon raw emotion that sneaks in. Emotion drove the motivation to become veggie, but I find reason and science very much sustain it.
So I was vegetarian and later on, around aged 20, I became vegan. Funnily, when I first became vegan I lived in the mecca for the rabbit diet inclined, Brighton. A long consideration of the interaction of the dairy and meat industries and the environmental impact of even animal byproducts had lead me to conclude that veganism was the way to go. Everyone warned me how hard being vegan is, but Brighton made being vegan seem normal. There are veggie fast food joints, lots of vegan cake, many vegan friendly pubs and lots and lots of restaurants and stores. There was even a vegetarian shoe shop. So it wasn’t hard at all, but of course being young and big headed, I thought this was because of my special will power. Then I moved to Sheffield. Turns out it was mostly easy due to my special environment. Still with a little expansion of my pallet and the finding of some awesome eateries and markets, it is still enjoyable to be vegan. I am the type who thoroughly enjoys eating and food. Plus I can now make my own excellent cakes and desserts.
Being vegan can have some interesting effects on your social life, cue lots of fart jokes. No not because of unwanted guffing! A lot of socialising revolves around food, so it is usually something people end up finding out about and their reactions can be strange. Most commonly people will: make jokes (fair enough if you can tell me one I haven’t heard I will by you a beer, a veggie one of course), ask a lot of often ridiculous questions, get unnecessarily angry (again not trying to convert anyone here) or justify every life decision they have ever made to me (not here to judge you, no honestly). However, the most inconvenient, when you are trying to enjoy your dinner are the questions, oh god the questions make it stop, I just want to eat. Here are a few especially reoccurring ones:
Q. Do you eat …..? (Insert huge list of foods.)
A. You have the definition, you are an intelligent person, lets get those brain cells rubbing together and you working it out so I can go back to the cake… please, I just want to eat the cake… No chickens not vegan *gently sobs into cake*.
Q. If you were …on an island, in the dessert, in the jungle, lost at sea, in the arctic (delete as appropriate) would you eat meat?
A. Well I don’t personally live in any of those places so it’s not immanently an issue, and if I did find myself transported suddenly to a remote location I would probably wander around confusedly, constantly checking my cell phone reception and maybe even shout for help, rather than internally debate veganism.
Q. I could never get enough calories being vegan, I don’t know how you do it?
A. *Looks up from cake, wipes frosting from mouth and clothing, pulls up jeans to hide muffin top* Yes, yes that is a problem. I am practically wasting away eating all this lectuce.
Q. How do you get enough protein?
A. Every cell contains protein. It is what DNA codes for. I am sure I will be fine. Also, do you know anyone with a protein deficiency who doesn’t have a medical problem?
Q. If you kept an animal as a pet and it lead a long and happy life would you eat it?
A. Well it is not typical for humans to eat their pets, just so you know, but I get your point and no, because the meat would be old, tough, sad and likely treated with human poisoning medications.
Q. Would you eat meat if … insert massive list of situations?
A. ..er… takes cake and leaves, politely of course I am British, I would probably apologise as I left.
However, there is one question friends and strangers pose which I do think about often “why are you vegan?”. Yes I could give you the talk on the environment – 3rd biggest producer of carbon emissions, cause of rain forest loss… blah blah. I could talk about animal welfare – painful procedures without anesthetic, terrible husbandry, awful slaughter blah blah. I could even give the information on the human impact- couldn’t feed everyone a western diet on the available resources blah blah. And these would all be valid points with scientific support (if you are interested in reading more, there are plenty of erudite articles/papers on the topic). But really, for me, it comes down to a core idea and way of living. See I don’t believe we can guarantee there is anything beyond the brief existence we enjoy. There is a great likelihood that after this life we will once again merge with the abyss from whence we came. Therefore, life is essentially without any greater purpose than that which can be observed extantly around us. Given this, improving the experience of sentient life is the only tangible way of producing a greater purpose of life and the only thing we can really do in this life which has any real impact or hope of producing ‘good’ both now and in the future. I also don’t believe that my sentient experience should be prioritised above others, there is nothing special about me compared to you, or anything particularly special about being a human (certainly with regards to biodiversity we are axiomatically unremarkable). Since the study of animal psychology and neurology has proven the stark sentience of their existence and the neurological potential and capacity for consciousness, it is clear humans aren’t unique in their visceral experiencing of the world. Thus being human does not give me privilege to unnecessarily harm others sentient creatures.
Improving, and/or at least not harming the sentient experience of human and non-human beings through my existence is, therefore, important to me. I wish to live without creating harm to others. Eating meat and animal byproducts creates proven harm to sentient creatures, and thus an easy way to reduce the harm of my existence is to reduce demand for such products and that is basically it.
Also, you know, there is the whole vegan powers perk 😉
(*Lemming has always been my Dad’s pet name for me. Even now I am almost 30 the epithet sticks. I like to think it came from the period of childhood during which I would randomly, enthusiastically and inconveniently run away from my parents regardless of where we were and the potential dangers. I would see something interesting and, wosh, Lemming like, I would be gone. These childhood adventures in independence have left their scars, particularly when in Germany I choicely legged it in a supermarket, into a shopping trolley and cracked my skull. Cue lots of blood, my sister screaming, my mum fainting and my poor dad trying to explain the whole messy situation to horrified German supermarket staff. I think I was 8 before they dared take off the child reins.)
I share my life with 3 very fat, very lovely rats. Yes voluntarily! No not because I missed the bin collection too many times. I have been sharing my house with these rodents most people condemn as unwanted vermin for almost 20 years. It’s been comedic, a privilege and a learning experience, so here are a few life lessons from rats:
1. They’re more like guidelines anyway.
Rats do not like to obey rules, particularly your rules and why should they, who died and made you King/Queen of rats. This is most true of 2 favourite rat pastimes: chewing and getting into places they aren’t allowed.
Didn’t want the rats to chew the wall paper, the door, your favourite t-shirt, your lucky pants? You can guarantee that will be the only thing the rat wants to chew. My usual conversations with the rats regarding this topic go like this –
Me – Hi my rat friend, I see you are trying to chew on that speaker cable again.
Rat – Speaker cables are a key dietary staple of rats, giant creature of food and cuddles.
Me – Well no, no they’re not but moving on. They are dangerous and you have already cost me 30 quid in speakers. You never chew any other cable type so I am assuming this is some sort of ratty humour?
Rat – *looks cute and wanders away to other mischief*
Me – *Hears gnawing* Rat why are you chewing on the cable again we have had this conversation.
Rat – Tis tasty. Like food but not.
Me – But I have bought you many objects for you to chew. Some of them taste like actual food. You have yet to lay a tooth on any of them.
Rat – Not same, does not taste of the sweetness of mouth victory nor invoke hairless human things to make noises.
Me – Seriously you need to stop this.
Rat – But must eats cable absorb its tasty power?
Me – No never eat the cable.
Rat – So cable?
Me – No never cables.
Rat – Ok, just for you …. 5mins later … *gnawing sounds*.
Conversations regarding getting into places they aren’t allowed go the same way. My advice; don’t store anything which won’t be improved by teeth marks near a rat. Resign to redecorate. Assume that the rat will be wherever it is not supposed to… if they are not currently in that locale, trust me they are plotting something.
The lesson: well sometimes in life you have to have to break a few rules to reach your goal and find the contentment that only chewing on a speaker wire… I mean… that a little bit of ethical anarchism can bring.
2. Be persistent, very persistent!
Rats are the most tenacious creatures you will ever meet. If they have a goal, whether it’s one you approve of or not, they will spend as much time and effort as necessary to achieve it. I have seen rats spend a lot of time trying to get to small morsel of food they aren’t allowed, even at the expense of eating a whole bowl of food near them. Because that morsel of food is out of reach and/or near me the rats become convinced it is a divine food that has been imbued with heavenly flavour far beyond their bowl scraps (often it’s the same food). More often than I would like to admit they get the food, either because they invoke their rat ninja powers (seriously rats are tiny ninjas never forget this) or I give in because I am a soft touch.
One of the most annoying ways this admirable trait of tenacity manifests is when they want to be picked up. They will do everything in their power to make it impossible for me not to pick them up. Their list of favourite moves includes foot riding, leg jumping, when leg jumping fails leg scratching, trying to trip the human creature and hanging of the human creature’s jeans by the teeth. Last time I checked, which to be fair was not recently, live rat leg accessories were A) not at all fashionable and B) highly frowned upon by most welfare groups, so they end up being picked up.
The lesson: persistence will usually, eventually get you somewhere you want to be, until you trip the giant and get stood on anyway.
3. How to deal with conflict.
Rats are a make love not war sort of creature, a little too much really, seriously stop humping each other. It is very awkward when you get your humpy ways on in front of my friends, but given that you go out of your way to ensure a full view, I expect you know that. Luckily my current 3 boys have now become too old to show much interest in each other that way. They are definitely moving into the slippers and snuggles phase of relationships. But when they do fight (well have lovers tiffs) rats have a number of mostly ineffective and highly amusing argument techniques. Below are their favourite moves in order of escalation:
The Grumpy Cuddle – Like a normal cuddle but I am annoyed at you for pinching the bit of pasta I wanted last night.
The most Dramatic and Unnecessary Squeak – Sound like you’re dying, it will at least throw off your opponent for a while.
The Bitch Slap – As it sounds. Thought you were getting the water bottle first … nope *slaps*. All rats are apparently very camp and got all their fighting skills from watching bad American soaps.
The Butt Thrust – Enthusiastically stick your butt in your opponent’s face, rigorously repeat as necessary until they get fed up of your butt and go away.
The Shuffly, Snuffly, Hedgehog Haka – The shit is really hitting the fan and it’s time for the big guns so puff your hair up until you look like a hedgehog, sniff as ferociously as one can sniff, and do a dance like a cute Haka, this is sure to win you any fight!
Life lesson: well er… mainly I am just warning you about how I now fight. No seriously, the message is don’t fight and when you squabble, never squabble in any way that isn’t hilarious.
4. No grudge matches.
The very few times I have seen rats have ‘serious’ tiff, well as serious as a fight can be when your big hairy butt is your primary weapon, I have noticed that rats don’t hold grudges. They never go to bed angry with each other. Even when a serious rat misdemeanour has occurred in the group, like taking the last bit of biscuit or hogging the food bowl or not sharing the banana … well most rat crimes are food based, this is how I find them in the morning:
The lesson: Squeak and squabble and butt thrust if you must, but make up and cuddle, life is too short to hold grudges rather than nuzzle in a hammock.
5. The simple pleasures.
Rats are hedonistic creatures, they eat a lot, sleep a lot (preferably in a hammock or extremely padded area), play like they are babies even when they are getting grey around the whiskers and thoroughly enjoy their lives. They frolic like the Greeks gods themselves and create more mischief and havoc than the Norse ones. If Loci made a creature in his image it was definitely the rat. It probably helps that they live a life of pure luxury; I wish my bedroom came complete with numerous hammocks and a giant food bowl.
(Breakfast in bed)
Rats revel in the pleasures of their environment and in the company of both each other and their human food delivery and snuggle machine. They rival dogs in there joy at seeing their human return. They also have the same perplexing quality in that they don’t seem to care whether you have been gone 5 seconds or 5 hours*. Rats have excellent memories so it can’t be that. Anyway a pet rat will always brighten your day, because when every person in your life is giving you grief, a rat will always be terrifically pleased to see you, just because you are you (well and because there is the off chance of biscuits). Had a really bad day and need more than one happy ratty pick-me-up, just close the door for 5 seconds and repeat the experience all over again!
Rats: Why you gone so long mummy human? Us much sad.
Me: I was gone 5 mins.
Rats: No was soooo long.
Me: It wasn’t long, I just went to get you food.
Rats: FORGIVEN!
The lesson: try to enjoy life, particularly the simple, little things as they are more constant. Revel in the pleasure of being with those you love, although maybe don’t show that love through enthusiastic humping and climbing onto their shoulders. Eat with a bountiful enthusiasm and don’t spend life prudishly, denying yourself things.
*Unless you want to see them before 9am, in which case you will mainly be squinted and yawned at, but I can understand that, they don’t even have caffeine to help with the pain that dawn brings.
6.Onwards to adventure.
As you might expect from a society of anarchist ninjas, rats love adventures and generally trying to get themselves into trouble. One of the first things you will notice if you ever get a pet rat is that one of their favourite things to do is ride around on shoulders. Forget parrots, Long John Silver should have had a rat. To a rat, you are a superb mini adventure playground you can be climbed, explored and ridden around on. Unfortunately shoulder riding comes with some issues, for the human.
When you get rats, if you get them young, they are tiny, really tiny. I mean look at them so adorable, several of them could fit under one ear (see picture below). Don’t be fooled though, they grow, and they grow, and they grow A LOT, the same rats are in the other picture below. As you can see it is now incredibly difficult for me to hold all three of them at the same time but despite this they still want to sit on my shoulders, all the time and all at the same time. Luckily they are always careful not to push each other off, unfortunately they are not so careful about scratching my neck. Even the smallest, unintentional slips with their tiny razor like nails can leave me with large red scratches down my neck/chest. As you can imagine these make my private life look rather er ..adventurous, and result in me getting looks from humans that range between amused and judgmental. Surprisingly, these looks often don’t change when I explain they are due to rats and not kinky bedroom antics.
(How’d you get so big!)
As rats get older their lust for adventure does not diminish, but unfortunately their physical prowess does. This doesn’t stop them though. One of my rats has hind leg degeneration but he still wants to climb everything, including shoulders. His determination is both impressive, if inconvenient.
Shuffler: Up, up, higher and up
Me: No you can’t do that anymore, remember?
Shuffler: But whys?
Me: Well …
Shuffler: Is cos older?
Me: Well….
Shuffler: Is cos legs not work so good any mores? *looks sad*
Me: Er …
Shuffler: But brothers allowed up *looks sadder*
Me: Fine ok.
Shuffler: Yay up, up, up we go… little help?
(Spends the entire time almost slipping and terrifying me)
Sometimes rats have adventures for no reasons. I had one tiny, rescue girl rat called Monster, who had a passion for climbing the tiny pipe in the corner of the room. She would scoot up there and survey her kingdom before fireman sliding her way back down. Despite the fact I was terrified she would fall and did everything in my power to block her path, without fail there she would be, up in the corner of the room by the ceiling, then wwweeeee she would come sliding back down. As has becoming a theme, eventually I just let her do it; it just made her so happy.
The lesson: have adventures and be curious, even if it’s for absolutely no rational reason.
7. Kindness begets kindness.
Despite a reputation worse than David Cameron’s, for being crueler than Ian Duncan Smith, more vicious than Osborne and more spiteful than Michael Gove, unlike the current UK government, rats are actually gentle, caring creatures. Yes, I know there was that whole unfortunate plague incident, but let’s just put that almost ancient history aside for a moment (besides it was really the fleas anyway).
I have had 10 rescue rats, some of which had less than ideal starts in life, certainly with regards to their experiences with humans, despite this I have yet to be bitten by a rat. Even when humans had neglected them and terrorised them, even when they were terrified and confused, even when ill or in pain, if I showed them kindness they showed it back. A lot of humans are not so generous in character. This nature makes them very easy to live with and because they are naturally forgiving, of all the smaller pets, they also one of the best with children, and let’s face it takes a very forgiving nature not to bite small children.
Rats show empathy to each other as well as humans. Rat empathy has even been studied scientifically, below is a video of one rat freeing another in a scientific study*.
But rat owners can quote many, many more incidences of helping, kindness and empathy between their pets. In fact it is so common that writing about anecdotes becomes hard. However, their kindness to each other is most obvious when they become ill or frail. I have seen rats give up that preciously, rare resource – food for a distressed or frail friend and if an ill friend can’t reach the top level of the cage, they will give up their preferred sleeping area to keep them company. Despite often being rambunctious and play fighting with each other, rats will temper their behaviour around their friends who can’t cope with the incessant food pinching and butt thrusting anymore. This same kindness will be extended to you when you are sad or ill. Rat cuddles are the best therapy.
The lesson: act with kindness, even to strangers and even if people have hurt you in the past, you will be happier. Care for those around you, even if you really want the last biscuit or the best place in the hammock, they need it more.
*You can find out more of the science using Google, or if you are feeling ambitious google.co.uk/scholar
A final word – Today is more important than tomorrow.
I will finish on a short one, rats live tragically short lives. Particularly short and illness filled if they have been bred on rodent farms, like the ones commonly sold in pet shops, rather than by a proper breeder (yes, get dedicated rat breeders, crazy huh). Despite the shortness of their lives (the oldest rat I had got to 5), they live every moment fully. They are all about the now. Rats are some of the most incredibly sentient, conscious, energetic and vivacious creatures you will meet. They fill a lot of joy and love into their short little lives and, really, isn’t that all any of us can hope for.
Two recent discoveries were made regarding the date of domestication of the wolf and resulting canine characteristics.
The first paper explored the origins of the dog using methods that examined the genetics and relatedness of dogs and wolves. The authors, Freedman et al, have narrowed domestication of the dog to a period 11-16 thousand years ago. As this time period predates the development of agriculture, it is posited that the first dogs were domesticated alongside hunter-gatherers rather than emerging agriculturalists. Furthermore, it appears that dogs, regardless of geographical origin, are genetically related to each other more than modern wolf species, and that genetic similarities between domestic dogs breeds and extant wolf species may be due to continued interbreeding post-domestication. The original dogs which formed a relationship of symbiotic benefit with our hunter-gather ancestors appear to have descended from an ancient common ancestor of wolf which populated areas in which ancient humans’ dwelt. So it seems the common story of dog domestication is not as simple as once thought.
Below is the abstract –
“To identify genetic changes underlying dog domestication and reconstruct their early evolutionary history, we generated high-quality genome sequences from three gray wolves, one from each of the three putative centers of dog domestication, two basal dog lineages (Basenji and Dingo) and a golden jackal as an outgroup. Analysis of these sequences supports a demographic model in which dogs and wolves diverged through a dynamic process involving population bottlenecks in both lineages and post-divergence gene flow. In dogs, the domestication bottleneck involved at least a 16-fold reduction in population size, a much more severe bottleneck than estimated previously. A sharp bottleneck in wolves occurred soon after their divergence from dogs, implying that the pool of diversity from which dogs arose was substantially larger than represented by modern wolf populations. We narrow the plausible range for the date of initial dog domestication to an interval spanning 11–16 thousand years ago, predating the rise of agriculture. In light of this finding, we expand upon previous work regarding the increase in copy number of the amylase gene (AMY2B) in dogs, which is believed to have aided digestion of starch in agricultural refuse. We find standing variation for amylase copy number variation in wolves and little or no copy number increase in the Dingo and Husky lineages. In conjunction with the estimated timing of dog origins, these results provide additional support to archaeological finds, suggesting the earliest dogs arose alongside hunter-gathers rather than agriculturists. Regarding the geographic origin of dogs, we find that, surprisingly, none of the extant wolf lineages from putative domestication centers is more closely related to dogs, and, instead, the sampled wolves form a sister monophyletic clade. This result, in combination with dog-wolf admixture during the process of domestication, suggests that a re-evaluation of past hypotheses regarding dog origins is necessary.”
The second paper has found differences in the cognitive abilities of wolves and dogs. Perhaps not surprisingly, given the long history of environmental separation and complex genetic relationship between dogs and wolves, researchers have found that the species differ in their ability to mimic one another, with wolves out performing dogs in their ability to learn how to solve a puzzle by copying a conspecific.
“Domestication is thought to have influenced the cognitive abilities of dogs underlying their communication with humans, but little is known about its effect on their interactions with conspecifics. Since domestication hypotheses offer limited predictions in regard to wolf-wolf compared to dog-dog interactions, we extend the cooperative breeding hypothesis suggesting that the dependency of wolves on close cooperation with conspecifics, including breeding but also territory defense and hunting, has created selection pressures on motivational and cognitive processes enhancing their propensity to pay close attention to conspecifics’ actions. During domestication, dogs’ dependency on conspecifics has been relaxed, leading to reduced motivational and cognitive abilities to interact with conspecifics. Here we show that 6-month-old wolves outperform same aged dogs in a two-action-imitation task following a conspecific demonstration. While the wolves readily opened the apparatus after a demonstration, the dogs failed to solve the problem. This difference could not be explained by differential motivation, better physical insight of wolves, differential developmental pathways of wolves and dogs or a higher dependency of dogs from humans. Our results are best explained by the hypothesis that higher cooperativeness may come together with a higher propensity to pay close attention to detailed actions of others and offer an alternative perspective to domestication by emphasizing the cooperativeness of wolves as a potential source of dog-human cooperation.”
A fair while ago, eminent consciousnesses scientists met at a symposium in England, their purpose was to conclude whether, given our current knowledge on how the brain processes consciousness, non-human animals could be considered conscious. Their conclusion? Animals, particularly mammals, but also birds and possibly other animals, demonstrate neurological potential for consciousness and thus must be considered conscious. Although some scientists, trainers and keepers concluded such long ago, a scientific agreement on this fact allows the discussion on animal welfare to continue, and hopefully move forward, without the limitation of discussion over sentience and consciousness as scientific understanding states that both are possible and observable.
Here is the exact agreement reach at the meeting:
If you want to get a bit more geeky over consciousness and the brain, here is an excellent talk by Christof Koch of Caltech.
I was recently asked to do a question and answer session for the Facebook group Equitation Science (http://www.facebook.com/groups/equitationscience/). The questions asked were very interesting so I thought I would do an article including some of the Q and A session. I would like to note that there were many fantastic comments made by the other members of the group leading to some great discussion. These comments haven’t been included here for reasons of anonymity and credit, should you wish to read these discussions simply request membership to the group.
QUESTION 1 – Negative reinforcement and avoidance learning.
In horse training, negative reinforcement involves moving away from pressure or in essence avoidance learning. When a horse has a strong disposition towards a flight response or is inclined to quickly move away from threatening stimuli, what training methods are most effective and what research is there to support their efficacy?
Answer – Firstly in this situation I would ask – why is the horse exhibit such a large stress response to the presence of such stimuli? Is the disposition really a personality trait innate to the horse or is the sensitised stress response indicative of the horse manifesting a higher base level of stress or is the response learnt? If the stress level of the horse is higher than ideal even at rest (this could be tested by heart rate or salivary cortisol) the the horses environment needs to be adapted to lower the horse’s base stress level. If the horse’s stress level is higher than it should be this will likely present itself in greater stress reactions to stimuli; this is because the threshold for such a reaction is closer to baseline level of stress in the horse. Isolation of the environmental stress will require some work but, again, analysing whether the horse has access to forage, friends and freedom is a good place to start.
Secondly, if the response is learnt training the horse using positive reinforcement methods will help reduce the stress response. Targeting could be used to train the desired behaviour and put it on a cue, subsequently a secondary cue of a very gentle pressure cue, such the horse would not try to escape it, could then be added if required. Such a training strategy would eliminate the need for stressful aversive stimuli through the use negative reinforcement training but would allow a gentle pressure cue if needed. If the horse has become more generally fearful of an environment/object/situation, rather than just the stimuli used to implement negative reinforcement, counter conditioning stimuli associated with fear will be helpful. Desensitisation could also be used to reduce the stress experienced by the horse through not over facing the horse with them the stimuli they are fearful of.
Additional comment – In this case we were examining a horse with a large stress response to negative reinforcement stimuli and thus would require training to eliminate this response to pressure (or the stimuli used for negative reinforcement). Although I believe we can use very gentle negative reinforcement without too much stress to the horse, you raise an interesting point because unfortunately positive punishment (the addition of an unpleasant stimulus to lower the likelihood of a behaviour reoccurring) has to of occurred in order that the stimulus can be removed for negative reinforcement. If the stimulus did not start it could not be removed. The two concepts, although distinct, are not mutually exclusive, they work in tandem (see http://www.theequineindependent.com/home/?p=103).
QUESTION 2 – Equine Learned Helplessness
The American psychologist Martin Seligman published most of the early work on learned helplessness. This is the technical term used to describe a condition in which a human/animal has learned to behave helplessly, failing to respond even when there is an opportunity for it to help itself by avoiding unpleasant circumstances or gain a positive reward. In people, learned helplessness is associated with depression and other mental health problems. I am just wondering what the possible epidemiology of equine learned helplessness might be, the “symptomatology” and possible health ramifications.
Answer – Learned Helplessness is a psychological phenomenon which occurs when an animal, be it horse or human, no longer tries to escape an aversive stimulus (or in some cases multiple aversive stimuli). Such behaviour usually manifests because the horse has repeatedly been exposed to an aversive stimulus, tried to escape it, and failed. Eventually the animal stops trying to escape and thus behaves in a helpless manner. Often the horse may only exhibit this behaviour to one or two stimuli, however, sometimes you can see this helplessness response generalise in the same manner as other behaviours may generalise. Therefore, the helplessness may not be stimulus or situation specific. In the horse world sometimes such horses are considered ‘shut down’.
Specifically in horses restraint, pressure and punishments have been considered a potential source of learned helplessness if incorrectly utilised. Examples of potential sources of learned helplessness include the incorrect use of riding gadgets such as draw reins, strong bits (even kinder bits in the wrong hands), spurs, whips … I am sure we can all think of more. Some specific training techniques e.g. leg tying and dare I say Rolkur, rely on learned helplessness, however, any technique that uses aversive stimuli can be at risk of inducing such a response if wrongly applied.
Symptomology:
*The most obvious symptom is a lack of escape behaviour in response to an unpleasant stimulus. The stimulus may be pressure, fear or pain based.
Other symptoms that have not been examined closely in horses but are documented in humans include:
*Sensitised and adapted stress response. If a prolonged period of exposure to an inescapable unpleasant stimulus it experienced, the results can present in the form of both the psychological and physiological symptoms of stress. These may continue if the horse if exposed to stimuli associated with the inescapable stressor, even if the stressor itself is no longer present.
*Psychologically the horse may experience anhedonia, lack of motivation, disrupted emotional processing, unusual stress responses (fight and flight) and inhibited learning/cognitive ability.
*Physiologically the horse may experience increase stress, a reduced immune response and an increased risk of the disorders associated with a high stress environment and life experience (e.g. stomach ulcers). It is possible that these symptoms could all occur in the horse although I stress little specific research has been done in this area, and given that most learned helplessness studies on animals were not entirely ethical this may not be a terrible thing.
There are theories of depression which concentrate on the role of learned helplessness, however these are widely debated, certainly there is a cross over in both symptomology and neurological activation if you are interested in reading about any of the above a quick google search will find you a lot of information.
Specifically with regards to horses I can recommend the paper – “Is There Evidence of Learned Helplessness in Horses?” Hall et al, 2008.
Neurology :
I don’t have time to write out all the neurological information so you will have to forgive me quoting.
“Evidence suggests an important role for 5-HT neurons in the dorsal raphe nucleus (DRN) in mediating learned helplessness (see Maier and Watkins 2005, for reviews). The DRN is a midline brainstem structure that contains a high concentration of 5-HT neurons that provide 5-HT to higher brain centers via multiple fiber tracts. …5-HT neurons in the DRN have long been associated with depression … anxiety …and behavioral responses to stress… The DRN projects to structures involved in fear, anxiety, and depression, such as the cortex, amygdala, periaqueductal grey (PAG), and locus coeruleus (LC)” Greenwood and Fleshner (2008). You can see that stress can affect the functioning of these pathway.
Rehabilitating the learned helplessness horse:
Here are a few idea for undoing the learned response, remember the brain is plastic even when the horse is old and thus often the horse can relearn/unlearn their response to stimuli.
*It’s cliché but time is a great healer, especially time in a stress free environment where they no longer experience the stressor which induces the learned helplessness response. Ideally the horse will be out as much as possible, be eating for 16hrs-ish a day and have a stable peer group to socialise with. The old adage of forage, friends and freedom can go a long way towards the rehab of any horse. The brains stress response will often (but not always) ‘reset’, if you like, in such an environment making further training much easier. Removing the stressor(s) is the first step!
*If the stressor is something which the horse has to come into contact with in their environment, a training strategy including counter conditioning and desensitisation combined will help the horse to relearn to be relaxed and even enjoy the presence of the previously stressful object/environment. Obviously you would only do this for objects and situations associated with the aversive events/helplessness and not the events themselves! For example, if the horse had become helpless when ridden you could work on encouraging the horse to enjoy being ridden by training without the use of large aversive stimuli but instead with positive reinforcement. I have found that reward inhibits stress in the horse. Indeed research shows that activation of the reward pathways of the brain actively dampens stress responses and therefore will help the horse to be without a heightened stress response and the psychological and physiological manifestations of increased stress.
Additional comment – Grass is included in the forage part of the phrase. The phrase is applicable to the horse as a management system as it describes the most prominent innate needs of the horse in order that they can be without stress. Therefore, as you say, it is necessary at all stages of the horse’s life. I was describing it as part of the rehabilitation for learned helplessness because I suspect that none here would drive a horse into learned helplessness but they may acquire such a horse or be called out to one. A slightly more complex version of the same paradigm might be an adapted version of Maslow’s heirarchy of needs. Regarding the relationship between submission and learned helplessness it would certainly be valid to suggest a behavioural parallel between the two psychological states (unfortunately, I don’t own the Equid Ethogram). Possibly it would be accurate to say that all learned helplessness could be described as submission but not all submission is learned helplessness, of course this depends on your definition of submission. The relationship between these two psychological concepts seems to be complex and their isn’t a huge amount of research available, however, this paper is worth a read (again I don’t agree with the methods used) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17708544. Hope this answers your question.
QUESTION 3 – There seems to be a lot of confusion out there with regards to definitions of negative punishment (response cost, time out). Do you think horses actually understand negative punishment ? What research has been done in this area?
Answer – Negative punishment is possibly the trickiest of the four primary learning theory concepts to apply well to horse training. The removal of a desirable stimulus in consequence to an unwanted behaviour in order to punish said behaviour requires both timing and an understanding of frustration/defensive behaviours. Obviously, removing a highly desirable stimuli from the horse could trigger unwanted behaviours over and above the original unwanted behaviour, so care is needed. For example, removing food from a horse with food related issues may trigger defensive aggression, but this technique may not unduly stress another horse, therefore each horse and behaviour needs to be considered with regards to their individual personality. So yes horses can be trained with negative punishment, it’s the human understanding of punishment and the side effects which can occur when such methods are used which is key. Rewarding a incompatible behaviour in place of the unwanted behaviour may be an effective alternative technique, circumventing the need for punishment.
Research in this area is thin on the ground, probably because the ethics of such research would be hard to navigate, similarly to work on positive punishment.
Additional related question – So when I am clicker training my horse and withhold food whilst I am waiting for the correct response, is this negative punishment? As I have not actually taken anything away, rather I am withholding a positive reinforcer?
Answer – This is a tricky question, if positive reinforcement is being used the reward should never be given to the horse and then removed creating negative punishment. However, sometimes this is case when the trainer is not sure whether to reward or not, so the trainer needs to be definite with the timing. The trainer also needs to be aware that if the horse is too hungry or gets anxious regarding food negative reinforcement could also come into play as the food removes briefly the aversive stimuli of hunger(interestingly there are theories of drug addiction which focus on the role of negative reinforcement). These effects can be reasonably simply averted by observing the horse for signs of stress or learning disruption which might suggest their role and changing strategy to ensure the positive reinforcement acts exclusively.
Additional comments –
The training strategy should be defined before it occurs however, within the training observation and evaluation should be regularly considered to ensure that the trainer is training in the manner they intend and that the horse is happy and progressing in said training.
To clarify the negative punishment with food stimuli does not occur simply by the presence of food because you have not removed anything from the horse, the horse never had the food. It would only occur, as I said before, if the trainer was ambiguous in timing and gave the horse the food and then removed it due to a change of mind.
If you have a question about any of the answers or the terminology used, please feel free to leave a comment or email me and I will happily answer your questions.
For a while a conundrum has been playing with my thoughts. It all started one chilly but sunny Saturday, during an ordinary training session, whilst training a horse that for the purposes of this article we will call ‘The Pony’. It was nearing the end of the session when The Pony tripped over a protruding root an came very close to stand on my foot. In an effort to preserve my foot I quickly asked the horse to move back wit
h a little pressure on the chest. A fairly benign act in response to which The Pony quickly ceased stumbling toward my vulnerable metatarsals and politely backed away. The training session continued without incident but a question remained in my mind.
Pressure and release is a commonly used method of horse training, within equestrian literature it is often cited as a simple but effective use of negative reinforcement. Whether it is a pressure on the chest of a horse to ask for a reverse, the use of the head collar to lead the horse, a gentle pressure on the reins to ask for a halt or the use of advance and retreat to approach a nervous horse, it is almost impossible to avoid the use of negative reinforcement in training. However until the incident with The Pony it had never occurred to me that positive punishment maybe an inextricable part of negative reinforcement. Can negative-reinforcement occur with out positive punishment? The Pony had be negatively reinforced for reversing away from me by the release of pressure, but it had been the addition of the pressure which had prevented further advancement.
Negative reinforcement is defined within all behaviour literature as the removal of an unpleasant or aversive stimulus in response to a wanted behaviour to reinforce the behaviour, and thus encourage the behaviour to reoccur in the future. This is a definition that most people are familiar with. However, the training incident with The Pony made me think – in order for something to be removed it must have been applied at some point in the past. For the aversive stimuli to be removed to reinforce a behaviour it must at some point have been applied. The addition of an aversive stimulus is the definition of positive punishment, the effect of positive punishment is that it reduces the likelihood of the behaviour it is a consequence of occurring in the future. Pressure on the chest of The Pony prevented further forward advancement towards my foot, so is it that I positively punished the forward movement? And as an extension of this thought, is it that every use of negative reinforcement begins with the use of positive punishment?
This is may seem like a conundrum based in the semantics of academic definitions but the practical consequences of positive punishment being inextricable from negative reinforcement are not dismissible. The most important practical consequence of positive punishment is that it discourages the behaviour it is associated with from occurring again. When applying the negative reinforcer, be it pressure or the advance of advance-retreat training, we must be careful that the behaviour it is being applied to is unwanted or the positive punishment would diminish a desired behaviour. The training should thus ensure that the negative reinforcer is attended to with regards to not only the timing of its release but also it’s application, this will ensure that wanted behaviours are not punished.
The problem of positive punishment being inextricable from negative reinforcement and the two training methods not being mutually exclusive is one that has impacts on training which could effect the psychology of the horse, the effectiveness of the training and the welfare of the horse. Punishment has been correlated with side effects which are important to our training of horses and must be understood to preserve the horse’s well being within training. Although this article is not the place to detail the problems and side effects of punishment I will briefly outline the most important ones below.
Punishment teaches only what not to do and does not suggest a more appropriate behavioural replacement for the one being punished.
Punishment can invoke emotional reactions in horses, such as fear or aggression. These reactions are more likely with physical punishment. In order to avoid these reactions, any punishment applied should be sympathetic to the horse’s personality i.e. how reactive they are and also to the situation. Positive punishment and negative reinforcement are both based in use of stimuli which are to a greater or lesser extent unpleasant for the horse, such as pressure, and as such it must be ensured that the horse is not stressed by the punisher in order to ensure emotional reactions are not experienced.
Pain-elicited aggression can be induced if painful physical punishers are used. Pain can heighten a flight/fight response and cause aggressive reactions in the horse as they try and escape the threat of pain, therefore positive punishers which cause pain should never be used in training.
Anxiety caused by punishment can actually impair the horse’s ability to concentrate and learn effectively. Extremes of emotion inhibit the brains cognitive abilities and thus impair attention.
Learned helplessness is a condition induced through the incorrect use of punishment. Learned helplessness occurs when the horse feels they cannot avoid punishment over a sustained period of time. The horse learns that any attempts to escape are futile and thus the horse will not attempt to escape or avoid the punishment, even once an escape or avoidance method is offered.
Avoidance behaviours – if the horse learns to associate a person or situation with punishment, the horse may logically try to avoid that situation or handler.
It is also possible for horses to selectively suppress the punished behaviour until punishment is less likely, either when the punishing handler is no longer present, or when the horse believes that it is less likely to be punished for the behaviour.
Punishment can reduce the horse’s interest in their work, if a horse is punished the horse’s motivation will be diminished and thus the horse is less likely to participate willingly in training.
If negative reinforcement by its definition begins with a positive punishment these problems that are associated with punishment are consequently also a problems intrinsic to the use of negative reinforcement. It is therefore essential that they are considered carefully if negative reinforcement is to be used in training. The application of the negative reinforcer must follow the rules of applying positive punishment if side effects are to be avoided in the horse.
The rule of applying punishment to avoid side effects are as follows, the punishment must be –
Immediate
Consistent
Never painful
Never dealt in anger
Specific to targeted unwanted behaviours and not delivered randomly or accidentally.
Never used during confusion
Obviously each horse has their own tolerance levels for different stimuli. An aversive stimulus for one horse may not be unpleasant for another. However given that negative reinforcement is based upon the release of an aversive stimulus, it is highly likely that the stimulus use as a negative reinforcer could also be a positive punisher for the horse. I would be interested to hear if anyone could think of a training scenario in which the negative reinforcer when applied could not be considered a positive punisher because I must admit I could not think of one.
To finish this article I would like to say that I don’t believe that we can avoid the use of negative reinforcement in training but any part of training that uses aversive stimuli, i.e. negative reinforcement or positive punishment should be carefully considered with regards to the strength of the stimulus and its application.
Recently I watched an episode of Monty and Kelly’s Horsemanship Essentials on Horse and Country TV. The series showcases the horse training methods of Monty Roberts and Kelly Marks. In the first part of the third episode of this series a heart monitor is worn by the horse – a lovely 3 year old Trekehner filly, while a join up and first time saddling is performed. During this episode I became increasing worried about the interpretation of the heart-rate data and I will discuss these interpretations during this article. The episode will have been seen by many viewers and therefore it is important that these factors are addressed, and furthermore I fear this misinterpretation of the heart-rate data maybe a common occurrence during join up clinics and possibly in traditional training. The purpose of this article is not, however, to discuss the pros and cons of the join-up training methodology.
Firstly here is some information on heart-rate monitors and the heart-rate of the horse.
What are heart-rate monitors?
Heart rate monitors are small electrical devices usually worn on a strap around the horse’s girth. The electrodes of the monitor sitting on the skin of the horse near to the heart. The heart-rate monitor measures electrical pulses which are produced as the heart beats and either the monitor records how many times the horse’s heart beats or it transmits a signal to a receiver which records the data. During a period of time the heart-rate data is analysed and the resulting heart-rate is given as beats per minute (bpm).
What is the resting and working heart-rate of the horse?
The veterinary profession advises in almost all literature that the resting heart-rate of the mature horse should be observed to be between 28-45 beats per minute (bpm). Horses of 2 years old and younger will usually have slightly faster heart-rate and a 2 – 4 week old foal should normally have a heart-rate of between 70-90 bpm.
The horse has a maximum heart-rate of between 200 and 240 bpm, During exercise if the horse’s heart-rate is below approximately 150 bpm he will be working aerobically, above 150 bpm and the horse will be working anaerobically. During aerobic respiration the horse is relying on the oxygen available in his body to produce enough energy. However, during anaerobic respiration the horse can no longer rely on the oxygen available in his body to create enough fuel for exercise and therefore will produce energy without using oxygen once all available oxygen has be consumed.
To address the interpretation of the heart-rate data observed in the above online episode I will outline two moments in the video where heart rate is being discussed in some length and analyse the data and the interpretation.
3 minutes into the video Monty says that the filly’s heart rate started at 61 bpm when she entered the round pen, rose to approximately 120 bpm during join up and then returned to a ‘resting heart rate’ of 61 bpm shortly after the follow up. A heart-rate of 61 bpm is not a resting heart-rate according to veterinary literature, should a horse have a true resting heart-rate of above 60 when the horse is in their usual environment and not exercising, it is usually highly advisable that they see a vet as it is probable that they are either chronically stressed or in pain from illness or injury. In addition it is very difficult to use this data to categorically state that the filly was not stressed by the join up. The heart-rate was higher during join up due to the exercise, it is impossible to decipher whether the horse was stressed or not during the join up using heart-rate as a measure of stress as the heart-rate will be high anyway due to the physical exertion. Interestingly, the filly’s heart-rate returned to 61 bpm and did not drop lower than this during recovery after follow up, which would imply that the filly was still not relaxed in the round-pen, although again it is difficult to decipher whether this is because of the training or because the filly is simply in an unfamiliar environment.
5 minutes 50 seconds in to the episode heart-rate is briefly discussed once more, Monty states that the average heart-rate of the filly during the session was 67 bpm, but this included the join up during the start of the training when the heart-rate rose to 120 bpm. Again it is necessary to observe that 67 bpm is a high heart-rate for a horse, being approximately double a normal resting heart-rate. It should also be acknowledged that when the average heart-rate includes periods of exercise it is impossible to use the data as an indicator of stress in the horse.
Heart-rate data can be used as a measure of stress but not in conjunction with a task which requires the horse to physically exert themselves which will raise the heart-rate regardless. In addition, one should always be mindful of the standard veterinary advice on equine resting and exercising heart-rates when interpreting heart-rate data and when watching heart-rate presentations.
This is a video everyone should watch. The still well established use of whips in racing and all horse sports, as well as our equestrian leisure activities, is a damning indictment of our consideration of the horse’s welfare in our entertainment by them and relationship with them. If you can’t train a horse without striking it with a whip, then you can’t train a horse at all, only bully one. Violence is not necessary for performance and is detrimental to learning and cognition (google.co.uk/scholar can provide you which much scientific evidence should you wish to find it).
This is an excellent lecture course, which will cause you to question, wonder, aspire and despair in equal measure.
Recently I watched an episode of Monty and Kelly’s Horsemanship Essentials on Horse and Country TV. The series showcases the horse training methods of Monty Roberts and Kelly Marks. In the first part of the third episode of this series a heart monitor is worn by the horse – a lovely 3 year old Trekehner filly, while a join up and first time saddling is performed. During this episode I became increasing worried about the interpretation of the heart-rate data and I will discuss these interpretations during this article. The episode will have been seen by many viewers and therefore it is important that these factors are addressed, and furthermore I fear this misinterpretation of the heart-rate data maybe a common occurrence during join up clinics and possibly in traditional training. The purpose of this article is not, however, to discuss the pros and cons of the join-up training methodology.
Emma Lethbridge Horsemanship 