FREE SHIPPING over $40
OVER 9000 FIVE-STAR REVIEWS
5% OFF ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS
100% HAPPINESS GUARANTEE
Analyze Diet
0
Home / Equine Research Bank / Animals (Basel) / A New Framework for Assessing Equid Welfare: A Case Study of...
Animals : an open access journal from MDPI2020; 10(6); 1074; doi: 10.3390/ani10061074

A New Framework for Assessing Equid Welfare: A Case Study of Working Equids in Nepalese Brick Kilns.

Abstract: Equids fulfil many different roles within communities. In low- to middle-income countries (LMICs), in addition to providing a source of income, equids also provide essential transport of food, water, and goods to resource-limited and/or isolated communities that might otherwise lack access. The aim of this investigation was to understand the welfare conditions that donkeys, mules, and horses are exposed to whilst working in Nepalese brick kilns. To understand the welfare conditions of equids in Nepalese brick kilns, the Welfare Aggregation and Guidance (WAG) tool in conjunction with the Equid Assessment, Research and Scoping (EARS) tool was used to understand the health, behaviour, nutrition, living and working conditions in brick kilns. Further analysis of individual EARS responses focused on key indicator questions relating to demographic information was used to investigate specific areas of welfare concern and attitudes of handlers towards their equids. Trained staff carried out welfare assessments between December 2018 and April 2019. The information gathered using the EARS tool was summarised using the WAG tool to pinpoint areas of welfare concern and suggest possible strategies to mitigate poor welfare conditions and suggest areas to improve the welfare of equids. Overall, the results indicate that to improve the welfare of equids working in Nepalese brick kilns, there should be better provision of clean water, both when working and stabled, equipment should be removed and shade provided during rest periods, with improvements made to housing to allow the equids to rest and recuperate when not working. Further work should also focus on collaborating with owners and equid handlers to improve their attitudes and practices towards their equids. Such improvements can be implemented via training of equid handlers and kiln owners whilst using the EARS and WAG tools to provide a sound basis on which to monitor the effectiveness and impact of education programs on equid welfare.
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2020-06-22 PubMed ID: 32580418PubMed Central: PMC7341268DOI: 10.3390/ani10061074Google Scholar: Lookup
The Equine Research Bank provides access to a large database of publicly available scientific literature. Inclusion in the Research Bank does not imply endorsement of study methods or findings by Mad Barn.
LinkedInCopy
  • Journal Article

Summary

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

This study aims to understand the welfare conditions of donkeys, mules, and horses working at Nepalese brick kilns. The researchers used the Welfare Aggregation and Guidance (WAG) tool in combination with the Equid Assessment, Research and Scoping (EARS) tool to study their health, behavior, nutrition, and living and working conditions. They suggested improvements could be made in areas such as clean water provision, better rest facilities, and attitude changes among handlers and owners.

Research Objective

  • The central objective of this study was to evaluate the welfare conditions of working equids, specifically horses, mules, and donkeys, in Nepalese brick kilns. Aside providing income, these equids are essential for the transport of food, water, and goods to isolated and resource-limited communities in low- to middle-income countries (LMICs).

Investigation Methodology

  • The researchers used two principal tools to evaluate the welfare conditions of the equids at the brick kilns: the Welfare Aggregation and Guidance (WAG) tool and the Equid Assessment, Research and Scoping (EARS) tool. The EARS tool captured relevant demographic information and data directly related to the equids’ health, behavior, nutrition, and working conditions, while the WAG tool was used to summarise this information and identify key areas of concern.
  • The actual welfare assessments were carried out by specially trained staff over a period between December 2018 and April 2019.

Key Findings

  • The tools used identified several areas that needed improvement: the provision of clean water for the equids both at work and back at the stables; the removal of equipment and providing of shade during resting hours; and making housing improvements that allow the equids to recuperate better when not working.
  • The study also pointed towards a need to improve the attitudes and practices of the equid handlers and owners. The researchers recommended that focusing on this aspect would greatly improve the working conditions for the equids, positively affecting their overall welfare.

Recommendation for Future Work

  • The research team suggested that the handlers and kiln owners should undergo training to learn better practices for the handling and care of their equids.
  • Additionally, the team recommended that both the EARS and WAG tools be used as the foundation for monitoring the impact and effectiveness of future educational programs aimed at improving equid welfare in Nepalese brick kilns.

Cite This Article

APA
Norris SL, Kubasiewicz LM, Watson TL, Little HA, Yadav AK, Thapa S, Raw Z, Burden FA. (2020). A New Framework for Assessing Equid Welfare: A Case Study of Working Equids in Nepalese Brick Kilns. Animals (Basel), 10(6), 1074. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10061074

Publication

Animals : an open access journal from MDPI
ISSN: 2076-2615
NlmUniqueID: 101635614
Country: Switzerland
Language: English
Volume: 10
Issue: 6
PII: 1074

Researcher Affiliations

Norris, Stuart L
  • The Donkey Sanctuary, Sidmouth, Devon EX10 0NU, UK.
Kubasiewicz, Laura M
  • The Donkey Sanctuary, Sidmouth, Devon EX10 0NU, UK.
Watson, Tamlin L
  • The Donkey Sanctuary, Sidmouth, Devon EX10 0NU, UK.
Little, Holly A
  • The Donkey Sanctuary, Sidmouth, Devon EX10 0NU, UK.
Yadav, Atish K
  • Animal Nepal, Dhobhighat, Lalitpur 44600, Nepal.
Thapa, Sajana
  • Animal Nepal, Dhobhighat, Lalitpur 44600, Nepal.
Raw, Zoe
  • The Donkey Sanctuary, Sidmouth, Devon EX10 0NU, UK.
Burden, Faith A
  • The Donkey Sanctuary, Sidmouth, Devon EX10 0NU, UK.

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

This article includes 48 references
  1. Luna D, Vásquez RA, Rojas M, Tadich TA. Welfare Status of Working Horses and Owners' Perceptions of Their Animals.. Animals (Basel) 2017 Aug 1;7(8).
    doi: 10.3390/ani7080056pmc: PMC5575568pubmed: 28788109google scholar: lookup
  2. Ali A.B.A., El Sayed M.A., Matoock M.Y., Fouad M.A., Heleski C.R., Ross S.R., Schapiro S.J., Hau J., Lukas K.E.. A welfare assessment scoring system for working equids—A method for identifying at risk populations and for monitoring progress of welfare enhancement strategies (trialed in Egypt). Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2009;176:52–62.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2015.12.001google scholar: lookup
  3. Watson TL, Kubasiewicz LM, Chamberlain N, Nye C, Raw Z, Burden FA. Cultural "Blind Spots," Social Influence and the Welfare of Working Donkeys in Brick Kilns in Northern India.. Front Vet Sci 2020;7:214.
    doi: 10.3389/fvets.2020.00214pmc: PMC7201042pubmed: 32411736google scholar: lookup
  4. Arriaga-Jordán CM, Pedraza-Fuentes AM, Velázquez-Beltrán LG, Nava-Bernal EG, Chávez-Mejía MC. Economic contribution of draught animals to Mazahua smallholder Campesino farming systems in the highlands of Central Mexico.. Trop Anim Health Prod 2005 Oct;37(7):589-97.
    doi: 10.1007/s11250-005-4177-3pubmed: 16450864google scholar: lookup
  5. Haddy E, Rodrigues JB, Raw Z, Burden F, Proops L. Documenting the Welfare and Role of Working Equids in Rural Communities of Portugal and Spain.. Animals (Basel) 2020 May 2;10(5).
    doi: 10.3390/ani10050790pmc: PMC7277599pubmed: 32370244google scholar: lookup
  6. Shah SZA, Nawaz Z, Nawaz S, Carder G, Ali M, Soomro N, Compston PC. The Role and Welfare of Cart Donkeys Used in Waste Management in Karachi, Pakistan.. Animals (Basel) 2019 Apr 12;9(4).
    doi: 10.3390/ani9040159pmc: PMC6523980pubmed: 31013717google scholar: lookup
  7. Fernando P., Starkey P.. Donkeys, People and Development. A Resource Book in the Animal Traction Network for Eastern and Southern Africa (ATNESA). ACP-EU Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation (CTA); Wageningen, The Netherlands: Donkeys and development: Socio-economic aspects of donkey use in Africa; p. 15.
  8. Geiger M., Hovorka A.. Donkeys in development: Welfare assessments and knowledge mobilisation. Dev. Pract. 2015;25:1091–1104.
    doi: 10.1080/09614524.2015.1078776google scholar: lookup
  9. Haddy E., Burden F., Proops L.. Shelter seeking behaviour of healthy donkeys and mules in a hot climate. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2020;222:104898.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2019.104898google scholar: lookup
  10. Shrestha S., Thygerson S.M.. Brick Kilns of Nepal: A Non-Governmental Organization Perspective. Open J. Saf. Sci. Technol. 2019;9:1–6.
    doi: 10.4236/ojsst.2019.91001google scholar: lookup
  11. Pritchard JC, Lindberg AC, Main DC, Whay HR. Assessment of the welfare of working horses, mules and donkeys, using health and behaviour parameters.. Prev Vet Med 2005 Jul 12;69(3-4):265-83.
    doi: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2005.02.002pubmed: 15907574google scholar: lookup
  12. Burn CC, Dennison TL, Whay HR. Environmental and demographic risk factors for poor welfare in working horses, donkeys and mules in developing countries.. Vet J 2010 Dec;186(3):385-92.
    doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2009.09.016pubmed: 19926316google scholar: lookup
  13. Sommerville R, Brown AF, Upjohn M. A standardised equine-based welfare assessment tool used for six years in low and middle income countries.. PLoS One 2018;13(2):e0192354.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0192354pmc: PMC5821349pubmed: 29466391google scholar: lookup
  14. Tesfaye A, Martin Curran M. A longitudinal survey of market donkeys in Ethiopia.. Trop Anim Health Prod 2005 Nov;37 Suppl 1:87-100.
    doi: 10.1007/s11250-005-9010-5pubmed: 16335073google scholar: lookup
  15. Kubasiewicz LM, Rodrigues JB, Norris SL, Watson TL, Rickards K, Bell N, Judge A, Raw Z, Burden FA. The Welfare Aggregation and Guidance (WAG) Tool: A New Method to Summarize Global Welfare Assessment Data for Equids.. Animals (Basel) 2020 Mar 25;10(4).
    doi: 10.3390/ani10040546pmc: PMC7222376pubmed: 32218133google scholar: lookup
  16. Ali A.B.A., El Sayed M.A., McLean A.K., Heleski C.R.. Aggression in working mules and subsequent aggressive treatment by their handlers in Egyptian brick kilns—Cause or effect?. J. Vet. Behav. 2019;29:95–101.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jveb.2018.05.008google scholar: lookup
  17. Dawkins M.. Using behaviour to assess animal welfare. Anim. Welf. 2004;13:3–7.
  18. Dixon L.M., Sandilands V., Bateson M., Brocklehurst S., Tolkamp B.J., D’Eath R.B.. Conditioned place preference or aversion as animal welfare assessment tools: Limitations in their application. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2013;148:164–176.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2013.07.012google scholar: lookup
  19. Hemsworth PH, Mellor DJ, Cronin GM, Tilbrook AJ. Scientific assessment of animal welfare.. N Z Vet J 2015 Jan;63(1):24-30.
    doi: 10.1080/00480169.2014.966167pubmed: 25263963google scholar: lookup
  20. Hockenhull J., Whay H.R.. A review of approaches to assessing equine welfare. Equine Vet. Educ. 2014;26:159–166.
    doi: 10.1111/eve.12129google scholar: lookup
  21. Estevez I., Battini M., Canali E., Ruíz R., Stilwell G., Ferrante V., Minero M., Marchewka J., Barbieri S., Mattiello S.. 013 AWIN mobile apps; animal welfare assessment at your fingertips. J. Anim. Sci. 2017;95:6–7.
    doi: 10.2527/asasann.2017.013google scholar: lookup
  22. Raw Z, Rodrigues JB, Rickards K, Ryding J, Norris SL, Judge A, Kubasiewicz LM, Watson TL, Little H, Hart B, Sullivan R, Garrett C, Burden FA. Equid Assessment, Research and Scoping (EARS): The Development and Implementation of a New Equid Welfare Assessment and Monitoring Tool.. Animals (Basel) 2020 Feb 13;10(2).
    doi: 10.3390/ani10020297pmc: PMC7070371pubmed: 32069910google scholar: lookup
  23. Main D.C.J., Kent J.P., Wemelsfelder F., Ofner E., Tuyttens F.A.M.. Applications for Methods of on-Farm Welfare Assessment. [(accessed on 18 April 2020)]; Available online: https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/ufaw/aw/2003/00000012/00000004/art00011.
  24. Ali A.B.A., Matoock M.Y., Fouad M.A., Heleski C.R.. Are mules or donkeys better adapted for Egyptian brick kiln work? (Until we can change the kilns). J. Vet. Behav. 2015;10:158–165.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jveb.2014.12.003google scholar: lookup
  25. Das S., Akhter R., Huque S., Khandaker S., Shahriar M., Gorapi M.Z.H.. Socioeconomic conditions and health hazards of brick field workers: A case study of Mymensingh brick industrial area of Bangladesh. J. Public Health Epidemiol. 2017;9:198–205.
    doi: 10.5897/JPHE2017.0927google scholar: lookup
  26. Rayner E, Airikkala-Otter I, Susheelan A, Gibson A, Itaba R, Mayani T, Mellanby RJ, Gamble L. Prevalence of skin wounds in working donkeys in Bukombe, Tanzania.. Vet Rec 2020 Mar 7;186(9):284.
    doi: 10.1136/vr.105399pubmed: 31554710google scholar: lookup
  27. Hartung C., Lerer A., Anokwa Y., Tseng C., Brunette W., Borriello G.. Open data kit: Tools to build information services for developing regions. Proceedings of the 4th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Information and Communication Technologies and Development—ICTD ’10. ACM Press; London, UK: 2010; pp. 1–12.
  28. R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing; Vienna, Austria: 2018.
  29. Racine J.S.. RStudio: A Platform-Independent IDE for R and Sweave: Software Review. J. Appl. Econom. 2012;27:167–172.
    doi: 10.1002/jae.1278google scholar: lookup
  30. Wickham H., Averick M., Bryan J., Chang W., McGowan L., François R., Grolemund G., Hayes A., Henry L., Hester J.. Welcome to the Tidyverse. J. Open Source Softw. 2019;4:1686.
    doi: 10.21105/joss.01686google scholar: lookup
  31. Venables B., Hornik K., Maechler M.. polynom: A Collection of Functions to Implement a Class for Univariate Polynomial Manipulations. [(accessed on 20 June 2020)]; Available online: https://rdrr.io/cran/polynom/.
  32. Fox J.. Effect Displays in R for Generalised Linear Models. J. Stat. Softw. 2003;8:1–27.
    doi: 10.18637/jss.v008.i15google scholar: lookup
  33. De Mendiburu F., Simon R.. Agricolae—Ten Years of An Open Source Statistical Tool for Experiments in Breeding, Agriculture and Biology. PeerJ PrePrints San Diego, CA, USA: 2015.
  34. Husson F., Lê S., Pagès J.. Exploratory Multivariate Analysis by Example Using R. CRC Press; Boca Raton, IL, USA: 2011. Chapman & Hall/CRC computer science and data analysis.
  35. Lê S., Josse J., Husson F.. FactoMineR: A Package for Multivariate Analysis. J. Stat. Softw. 2008;25:1–18.
    doi: 10.18637/jss.v025.i01google scholar: lookup
  36. Raut A.K.. Brick Kilns in Kathmandu Valley: Current status, environmental impacts and future options. Himal. J. Sci. 1970;1:59–61.
    doi: 10.3126/hjs.v1i1.189google scholar: lookup
  37. de Aluja A.S.. The welfare of working equids in Mexico. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 1998;59:19–29.
    doi: 10.1016/S0168-1591(98)00117-8google scholar: lookup
  38. Peterson C.. Learned Helplessness. In: Weiner I.B., Craighead W.E., editors. The Corsini Encyclopedia of Psychology. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; Hoboken, NJ, USA: 2010.
  39. McGreevy P., McLean A., Buckley P., McConaghy F., McLean C.. How riding may affect welfare: What the equine veterinarian needs to know. Equine Vet. Educ. 2011;23:531–539.
    doi: 10.1111/j.2042-3292.2010.00217.xgoogle scholar: lookup
  40. Kielland C, Skjerve E, Osterås O, Zanella AJ. Dairy farmer attitudes and empathy toward animals are associated with animal welfare indicators.. J Dairy Sci 2010 Jul;93(7):2998-3006.
    doi: 10.3168/jds.2009-2899pubmed: 20630216google scholar: lookup
  41. Tadich TA, Stuardo Escobar LH. Strategies for improving the welfare of working equids in the Americas: a Chilean example.. Rev Sci Tech 2014 Apr;33(1):203-11.
    doi: 10.20506/rst.33.1.2271pubmed: 25000793google scholar: lookup
  42. Raabymagle P., Ladewig J.. Lying behavior in horses in relation to box size. J. Equine Vet. Sci. 2006;26:11–17.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jevs.2005.11.015google scholar: lookup
  43. Fuchs C., Kiefner L.C., Kalus M., Reese S., Erhard M., Wöhr A.-C.. Polysomnography as a Tool to Asses equine Welfare. [(accessed on 20 June 2020)]; Available online: https://epub.ub.uni-muenchen.de/58598/.
  44. Costa E.D., Murray L., Dai F., Canali E., Minero M.. Equine on-farm welfare assessment: A review of animal-based indicators. Anim. Welf. 2014;23:323–341.
    doi: 10.7120/09627286.23.3.323google scholar: lookup
  45. Carson K., Wood-Gush D.G.M.. Equine behaviour: II. A review of the literature on feeding, eliminative and resting behaviour. Appl. Anim. Ethol. 1983;10:179–190.
    doi: 10.1016/0304-3762(83)90139-6google scholar: lookup
  46. Luna D, Tadich TA. Why Should Human-Animal Interactions Be Included in Research of Working Equids' Welfare?. Animals (Basel) 2019 Jan 30;9(2).
    doi: 10.3390/ani9020042pmc: PMC6406816pubmed: 30704022google scholar: lookup
  47. Pritchard J, Upjohn M, Hirson T. Improving working equine welfare in 'hard-win' situations, where gains are difficult, expensive or marginal.. PLoS One 2018;13(2):e0191950.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0191950pmc: PMC5800664pubmed: 29408887google scholar: lookup
  48. Stringer AP, Bell CE, Christley RM, Gebreab F, Tefera G, Reed K, Trawford A, Pinchbeck GL. A cluster-randomised controlled trial to compare the effectiveness of different knowledge-transfer interventions for rural working equid users in Ethiopia.. Prev Vet Med 2011 Jun 15;100(2):90-9.
    doi: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2011.02.001pmc: PMC3149660pubmed: 21420748google scholar: lookup

Citations

This article has been cited 11 times.
  1. Merridale-Punter MS, Wiethoelter AK, El-Hage CM, Hitchens PL. Prevalence and Factors Associated with Working Equid Lameness in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Animals (Basel) 2022 Nov 10;12(22).
    doi: 10.3390/ani12223100pubmed: 36428328google scholar: lookup
  2. Long M, Dürnberger C, Jenner F, Kelemen Z, Auer U, Grimm H. Quality of Life within Horse Welfare Assessment Tools: Informing Decisions for Chronically Ill and Geriatric Horses. Animals (Basel) 2022 Jul 17;12(14).
    doi: 10.3390/ani12141822pubmed: 35883370google scholar: lookup
  3. Bukhari SSUH, Rosanowski SM, McElligott AG, Parkes RSV. Welfare Concerns for Mounted Load Carrying by Working Donkeys in Pakistan. Front Vet Sci 2022;9:886020.
    doi: 10.3389/fvets.2022.886020pubmed: 35692297google scholar: lookup
  4. Norris SL, Little HA, Ryding J, Raw Z. Global donkey and mule populations: Figures and trends. PLoS One 2021;16(2):e0247830.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0247830pubmed: 33630957google scholar: lookup
  5. El Brini Z, Mhar I, Bouktaib FE, Piro M, Daniel C, Alyakine H. Common Radiographic Findings in Moroccan Working Equids: A Retrospective Study (2015-2022). Vet Sci 2026 Jan 8;13(1).
    doi: 10.3390/vetsci13010060pubmed: 41600716google scholar: lookup
  6. Cameron A, Freeman SL, Wild I, Burridge J, Burrell K. Scoping Review of the Socioeconomic Value of Working Equids, and the Impact of Educational Interventions Aimed at Improving Their Welfare. Animals (Basel) 2026 Jan 7;16(2).
    doi: 10.3390/ani16020165pubmed: 41594356google scholar: lookup
  7. Watson T, Clancy C. Shared work? Unravelling interspecies entanglements, agency, and the rhythms of equids at work. Front Vet Sci 2025;12:1570879.
    doi: 10.3389/fvets.2025.1570879pubmed: 40765743google scholar: lookup
  8. Taylor K, Harrison A, Capaldo T. Stoicism or Defeat? The Psychological Impact of the Kiln Environment on Working Donkeys and Mules. Animals (Basel) 2025 May 23;15(11).
    doi: 10.3390/ani15111525pubmed: 40508991google scholar: lookup
  9. Speiran SIM. The 'Sanctuary Gap': Reviewing the Research on Captive Wildlife Sanctuary Tourism. Animals (Basel) 2025 Feb 10;15(4).
    doi: 10.3390/ani15040496pubmed: 40002978google scholar: lookup
  10. Raw Z, Collins JA, Burden FA. What Is a Working Equid? Analysis of Current Terminology and a Suggested Definition. Animals (Basel) 2024 Jul 9;14(14).
    doi: 10.3390/ani14142026pubmed: 39061488google scholar: lookup
  11. Kubasiewicz LM, Watson T, Nye C, Chamberlain N, Perumal RK, Saroja R, Norris SL, Raw Z, Burden FA. Bonded labour and donkey ownership in the brick kilns of India: A need for reform of policy and practice. Anim Welf 2023;32:e8.
    doi: 10.1017/awf.2023.1pubmed: 38487459google scholar: lookup
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join 99,357 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.