FREE SHIPPING over $40
OVER 10000 FIVE-STAR REVIEWS
5% OFF ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS
100% HAPPINESS GUARANTEE
Analyze Diet
0
PloS one2018; 13(2); e0192354; doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0192354

A standardised equine-based welfare assessment tool used for six years in low and middle income countries.

Abstract: The majority of horses, donkeys and mules (equids) are in low- and middle-income countries, where they remain a key source of labour in the construction, agriculture and tourism industries, as well as supporting households daily through transporting people and staple goods. Globally, approximately 600 million people depend on working equids for their livelihood. Safeguarding the welfare of these animals is essential for them to work, as well as for the intrinsic value of the animal's quality of life. In order to manage animal welfare, it must be measured. Over the past decade, welfare assessment methodologies have emerged for different species, more recently for equids. We present the Standardised Equine-Based Welfare Assessment Tool (SEBWAT) for working equids. The tool is unique, in that it has been applied in practice by a non-governmental organisation (NGO) for six years across Low-Middle-Income Countries (LMICs). We describe the revision of the tool from an original to a second version, the tool methodology and user training process and how data collection and analysis have been conducted. We describe its application at scale, where it has been used more than 71,000 times in 11 countries. Case study examples are given from the tool being used for a needs assessment in Guatemala and monitoring welfare change in Jordan. We conclude by describing the main benefits and limitations for how the tool could be applied by others on working equids in LMICs and how it may develop in the future.
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2018-02-21 PubMed ID: 29466391PubMed Central: PMC5821349DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0192354Google 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
  • Research Support
  • Non-U.S. Gov't

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.

The research focuses on the Standardised Equine-Based Welfare Assessment Tool (SEBWAT), a tool that’s been assessing the welfare of working horses, donkeys, and mules in low- and middle-income countries for six years. It’s been used extensively in 11 countries and has aided in monitoring welfare changes and responding to animal needs through detailed assessment.

Explaining the Tool and its Objective

  • The Standardised Equine-Based Welfare Assessment Tool (SEBWAT) is a unique tool designed to assess the welfare of working creatures like horses, donkeys, and mules (collectively known as equids), which are integral to various industries like construction, agriculture, tourism, and transportation in low- and middle-income countries.
  • Approximately 600 million people globally are dependent on these working animals for their livelihoods, highlighting the necessity of ensuring their welfare, both for their intrinsic value and their ability to work effectively.
  • Given this need, the SEBWAT functions to provide a regular checkup on the welfare of these animals, effectively monitoring and managing any health issues that may hinder their functionality.

Application of SEBWAT

  • The paper mentions that the tool has been applied over 71,000 times across 11 different countries, indicating its adaptability and widespread use in assessing animal welfare.
  • The research provides instances where SEBWAT effectively identified animal welfare needs and monitor changes in their health over a specific duration—like in the case of Guatemala for a needs assessment and in Jordan for monitoring welfare change.
  • Data collection and analysis conducted via this tool have shown valuable results in understanding and ensuring equid welfare across nations.

Revision and Training

  • The paper also mentions a revision of the tool from its original version to a second version, improving its efficiency and reliability in welfare assessment.
  • A proper user training process was implemented to ensure the accurate and effective application of the SEBWAT tool. Clear guidelines on data collection, analysis, and application in various scenarios helped further enhance its adoption and results.

Future Prospects and Limitations

  • The research concludes by discussing the potential applications and limitations of the SEBWAT tool, emphasizing how it can be applied to assess the welfare of working equids in low- and middle-income countries and its potential for future development.
  • While the tool has shown significant results, the limitations it carries cannot be overlooked. These can influence the results obtained and how the tool could be further improved to better assess and oversee equid welfare.

Cite This Article

APA
Sommerville R, Brown AF, Upjohn M. (2018). A standardised equine-based welfare assessment tool used for six years in low and middle income countries. PLoS One, 13(2), e0192354. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0192354

Publication

PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
NlmUniqueID: 101285081
Country: United States
Language: English
Volume: 13
Issue: 2
Pages: e0192354
PII: e0192354

Researcher Affiliations

Sommerville, Rebecca
  • Brooke, Action for Working Horses and Donkeys, London, United Kingdom.
Brown, Ashleigh F
  • Brooke, Action for Working Horses and Donkeys, London, United Kingdom.
Upjohn, Melissa
  • Brooke, Action for Working Horses and Donkeys, London, United Kingdom.

MeSH Terms

  • Animal Welfare
  • Animals
  • Developing Countries
  • Equidae
  • Organizations

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

References

This article includes 77 references
  1. Blokhuis HJ, Veissier I, Miele M, Jones B. The Welfare Quality® project and beyond: Safeguarding farm animal wellbeing.. Acta Agric Scand Anim Sci 2010;60: 129–140.
  2. Phythian CJ, Toft N, Cripps PJ, Michalopoulou E, Winter AC, Jones PH, Grove-White D, Duncan JS. Inter-observer agreement, diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of animal-based indicators of young lamb welfare.. Animal 2013 Jul;7(7):1182-90.
    doi: 10.1017/S1751731113000487pubmed: 23561038google scholar: lookup
  3. Hemsworth PH, Mellor DJ, Cronin GM, Tilbrook AJ. Scientific assessment of animal welfare.. N Z Vet J 2015 Jan;63(1):24-30.
    pubmed: 25263963doi: 10.1080/00480169.2014.966167google scholar: lookup
  4. Ferrante V, Watanabe TTN, Marchewka J, Estevez I. AWIN Welfare assessment protocol for turkeys.. 2015;1.
    doi: 10.13130/AWIN_TURKEYS_2015google scholar: lookup
  5. Main DCJ, Kent JP, Wemelsfelder F, Ofner E, Tuyttens FAM. Applications for methods of on-farm welfare assessment.. Anim Welf 2003;12: 523–528.
  6. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2014. Database: FAOSTAT [Internet]. Available from: http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QA.
  7. Worldbank, 2017. Database: World Bank Open Data [Internet]. Available from: http://data.worldbank.org/income-level/low-and-middle-income.
  8. McKenna C. Bearing a Heavy Burden.. The Brooke 2008;1.
  9. Stringer A, Lunn DP, Reid S. Science in brief: Report on the first Havemeyer workshop on infectious diseases in working equids, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, November 2013.. Equine Vet J 2015 Jan;47(1):6-9.
    doi: 10.1111/evj.12359pubmed: 25257182google scholar: lookup
  10. Valette D. Invisible Workers: The Economic Contributions of Working Donkeys, Horses and Mules to Livelihoods.. The Brooke 2015;1n.
  11. Upjohn M, Wells K. Challenges Associated with Informed Consent in Low- and Low-Middle-Income Countries.. Front Vet Sci 2016;3:92.
    doi: 10.3389/fvets.2016.00001pmc: PMC5071326pubmed: 27812525google scholar: lookup
  12. Emanuela DC, Minero M, Canali E, Barbieri S, Zanella AJ. AWIN welfare assessment protocol for horses.. 2015;1.
    doi: 10.13130/AWIN_horses_2015google scholar: lookup
  13. Dalla Costa E, Dai F, Lebelt D, Scholz P, Barbieri S, Canali E. Welfare assessment of horses: The AWIN approach.. Anim Welf 2016;25(4): 481–8.
  14. Emanuela DC, Minero M, Canali E, Barbieri S, Zanella AJ. AWIN welfare assessment protocol for donkeys.. 2015;1.
    doi: 10.13130/AWIN_donkeys_2015google scholar: lookup
  15. Costa ED, Murray L, Dai F, Canali E, Minero M. Equine on-farm welfare assessment: a review of animal-based indicators.. Anim Welf 2014. August 1;23(3): 323–41.
  16. Dalla Costa E, Dai F, Lebelt D, Scholz P, Barbieri S, Canali E, Minero M. Initial outcomes of a harmonized approach to collect welfare data in sport and leisure horses.. Animal 2017 Feb;11(2):254-260.
    pubmed: 27406177doi: 10.1017/s1751731116001452google scholar: lookup
  17. Viksten SM, Visser EK, Nyman S, Blokhuis HJ. Developing a horse welfare assessment protocol.. Anim Welf 2017;26: 59–65.
  18. Minero M, Dalla Costa E, Dai F, Murray LAM, Canali E, Wemelsfelder F. Use of Qualitative Behaviour Assessment as an indicator of welfare in donkeys.. Appl Anim Behav Sci 2017;April 27;174: 147–53.
  19. Andreasen SN, Wemelsfelder F, Sandøe P, Forkman B. The correlation of Qualitative Behavior Assessments with Welfare Quality® protocol outcomes in on-farm welfare assessment of dairy cattle.. Appl Anim Behav Sci 2013;143(1): 9–17.
  20. Wathan J, Burrows AM, Waller BM, McComb K. EquiFACS: The Equine Facial Action Coding System.. PLoS One 2015;10(8):e0131738.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0131738pmc: PMC4526551pubmed: 26244573google scholar: lookup
  21. Dalla Costa E, Minero M, Lebelt D, Stucke D, Canali E, Leach MC. Development of the Horse Grimace Scale (HGS) as a pain assessment tool in horses undergoing routine castration.. PLoS One 2014;9(3):e92281.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0092281pmc: PMC3960217pubmed: 24647606google scholar: lookup
  22. Leach MC, Coulter CA, Richardson CA, Flecknell PA. Are we looking in the wrong place? Implications for behavioural-based pain assessment in rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculi) and beyond?. PLoS One 2011 Mar 15;6(3):e13347.
    pmc: PMC3057975pubmed: 21423605doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0013347google scholar: lookup
  23. Hausberger M, Fureix C, Lesimple C. Detecting horses’ sickness: In search of visible signs.. Appl Anim Behav Sci 2016;175: 41–49.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2015.09.005google scholar: lookup
  24. Bachmann I, Audigé L, Staﾬher M. Risk factors associated with behavioural disorders of crib-biting, weaving and box-walking in Swiss horses.. Equine Vet J 2003 Mar;35(2):158-63.
    pubmed: 12638792doi: 10.2746/042516403776114216google scholar: lookup
  25. Hausberger M, Gautier E, Biquand V, Lunel C, Jégo P. Could work be a source of behavioural disorders? A study in horses.. PLoS One 2009 Oct 28;4(10):e7625.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0007625pmc: PMC2763287pubmed: 19862328google scholar: lookup
  26. Fureix C, Beaulieu C, Argaud S, Hausberger M, Mason G, Quinton M. Investigating anhedonia in a non-conventional species: Do some riding horses Equus caballus display symptoms of depression?. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 2015, 162, pp.26–36.
  27. Lesimple C, Fureix C, LeScolan N, Richard-Yris MA, Hausberger M. Housing conditions and breed are associated with emotionality and cognitive abilities in riding school horses.. Appl Anim Behav Sci 2011;129: 92–99.
  28. Lesimple C, Fureix C, Biquand V, Hausberger M. Comparison of clinical examinations of back disorders and humans' evaluation of back pain in riding school horses.. BMC Vet Res 2013 Oct 15;9:209.
    doi: 10.1186/1746-6148-9-209pmc: PMC4015870pubmed: 24128080google scholar: lookup
  29. Lesimple C, Hausberger M. How accurate are we at assessing others' well-being? The example of welfare assessment in horses.. Front Psychol 2014;5:21.
    doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00001pmc: PMC3900850pubmed: 24478748google scholar: lookup
  30. Hockenhull J, Whay HR. A review of approaches to assessing equine welfare.. Equine Vet Educ 2014;26: 159–166.
  31. 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
  32. Whay HR, Dikshit AK, Hockenhull J, Parker RM, Banerjee A, Hughes SI, Pritchard JC, Reix CE. Evaluation of changes in equine care and limb-related abnormalities in working horses in Jaipur, India, as part of a two year participatory intervention study.. PLoS One 2015;10(5):e0126160.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0126160pmc: PMC4441452pubmed: 26000967google scholar: lookup
  33. Burn C. Why are some animal welfare problems dismissed as normal? Recent advances in animal welfare science IV. UFAW Animal Welfare Conference, 26th June 2014, York, UK.
  34. McBride SD, Long L. Management of horses showing stereotypic behaviour, owner perception and the implications for welfare.. Vet Rec 2001 Jun 30;148(26):799-802.
    pubmed: 11467606doi: 10.1136/vr.148.26.799google scholar: lookup
  35. Geiger M, Hovorka A. Donkeys in development: welfare assessments and knowledge mobilisation.. Dev Pract 2015;25: 1091–1104.
  36. 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
  37. Popescu S, Diugan EA. The Relationship Between Behavioral and Other Welfare Indicators of Working Horses.. J Equine Vet Sci 2013;33: 1–12.
  38. Stringer AP, Christley RM, Bell CE, Gebreab F, Tefera G, Reed K, Trawford A, Pinchbeck GL. Owner reported diseases of working equids in central Ethiopia.. Equine Vet J 2017 Jul;49(4):501-506.
    doi: 10.1111/evj.12633pmc: PMC5484383pubmed: 27565130google scholar: lookup
  39. Upjohn MM, Attwood GA, Lerotholi T, Pfeiffer DU, Verheyen KL. Quantitative versus qualitative approaches: a comparison of two research methods applied to identification of key health issues for working horses in Lesotho.. Prev Vet Med 2013 Mar 1;108(4):313-20.
    doi: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2012.11.008pubmed: 23419786google scholar: lookup
  40. Brown A, Twaissi A. Improving utility of animal-based measures of welfare through amendment to audit protocol. Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on the Assessment of Animal Welfare at Farm and Group Level, August 8-11th 2011, Guelph, Canada.
  41. Fraser AF. The Behaviour and Welfare of the Horse.. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2010.
  42. Sankey C, Richard-Yris MA, Henry S, Fureix C, Nassur F, Hausberger M. Reinforcement as a mediator of the perception of humans by horses (Equus caballus).. Anim Cogn 2010 Sep;13(5):753-64.
    doi: 10.1007/s10071-010-0326-9pubmed: 20490592google scholar: lookup
  43. Weston S. No Fear, No Force. A guide to handling and training unhandled and semi-feral foals in an ethical and gentle way. Devon: Token Publishing Ltd; 2009.
  44. Feh C, de Mazières J. Grooming at a preferred site reduces heart rate in horses.. Animal Behaviour 1993. pp. 1191–1194.
  45. Haverbeke NS. Heart rate reduction by grooming in horses (Equus caballus).. Dorothy Russell Havemeyer Foundation Workshop. Horse Behaviour and Welfare. Holar. Iceland.
  46. Mellor D, Beausoleil N. Extending the ‘Five Domains’ model for animal welfare assessment to incorporate positive welfare states.. Anim Welf 2015. August 1;24(3): 241–53.
  47. Broster CE, Burn CC, Barr AR, Whay HR. The range and prevalence of pathological abnormalities associated with lameness in working horses from developing countries.. Equine Vet J 2009 May;41(5):474-81.
    pubmed: 19642408doi: 10.2746/042516409x373907google scholar: lookup
  48. 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).
    pmc: PMC5575568pubmed: 28788109doi: 10.3390/ani7080056google scholar: lookup
  49. Pritchard JC, Barr ARS, Whay HR. Repeatability of a skin tent test for dehydration in working horses and donkeys.. Anim Welf 2007;16: 181–183.
  50. Pritchard JC, Burn CC, Barr AR, Whay HR. Validity of indicators of dehydration in working horses: a longitudinal study of changes in skin tent duration, mucous membrane dryness and drinking behaviour.. Equine Vet J 2008 Sep;40(6):558-64.
    doi: 10.2746/042516408X297462pubmed: 18356129google scholar: lookup
  51. Hausberger M, Fureix C, Bourjade M, Wessel-Robert S, Richard-Yris MA. On the significance of adult play: what does social play tell us about adult horse welfare?. Naturwissenschaften 2012 Apr;99(4):291-302.
    doi: 10.1007/s00114-012-0902-8pubmed: 22402927google scholar: lookup
  52. Regan FH, Hockenhull J, Pritchard JC, Waterman-Pearson AE, Whay HR. Behavioural repertoire of working donkeys and consistency of behaviour over time, as a preliminary step towards identifying pain-related behaviours.. PLoS One 2014;9(7):e101877.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0101877pmc: PMC4116118pubmed: 25076209google scholar: lookup
  53. Hemsworth LM, Ellen J, Coleman GJ. Recreational horse welfare: the relationship between recreational horse owner attributes and recreational horse welfare.. Appl Anim Behav Sci 2014;165: 1–16.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2014.11.019google scholar: lookup
  54. Dawkins M, Cain R, Roberts S. Optical flow, flock behaviour and chicken welfare.. Animal Behaviour 2012, July 1; 84219–223.
  55. Brooke The. The Working Equid Veterinary Manual,.. 1st ed. Essex: Whittet Books Ltd; 2013.
  56. Kumar S. Methods for community participation: a complete guide for practitioners.. Rugby: Intermediate Technology Publications Limited; 2002.
  57. van Dijk L, Pritchard J, Pradhan SK, Wells K. Sharing the load.. Warwickshire: Practical Action Publishing Ltd; 2011.
  58. Popescu S, Diugan EA, Spinu M. The interrelations of good welfare indicators assessed in working horses and their relationships with the type of work.. Res Vet Sci 2014 Apr;96(2):406-14.
    doi: 10.1016/j.rvsc.2013.12.014pubmed: 24461957google scholar: lookup
  59. Ali AB, El Sayed M, Matoock MY, Fouad M, Heleski CR. 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 2016;176: 52–62.
  60. Galindo F, de Aluja A, Cagigas R, Huerta LA, Tadich TA. Application of the Hands-On Donkey Tool for Assessing the Welfare of Working Equids at Tuliman, Mexico.. J Appl Anim Welf Sci 2018 Jan-Mar;21(1):93-100.
    pubmed: 28762781doi: 10.1080/10888705.2017.1351365google scholar: lookup
  61. Upjohn MM, Pfeiffer DU, Verheyen KL. Helping working Equidae and their owners in developing countries: monitoring and evaluation of evidence-based interventions.. Vet J 2014 Feb;199(2):210-6.
    doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2013.09.065pubmed: 24269105google scholar: lookup
  62. Kithuka J, Oloo V. Assessment of donkey body lesions and work types using the Brooke’s Standardised Equine-Based Welfare Assessment Tool in Kenya. International Symposia on Veterinary Epidemiology and Economics, 3-7th November 2015, Yucatan, Mexico.
  63. Bhardwaj N, Singh Negi B, Mohite D. Behaviour of working equids engaged in different types of work. International Congress of the International Society of Applied Ethology, 12-16th July 2016, Edinburgh, UK.
  64. Mitra D, Valette D. Environment, Human Labour, and Animal Welfare–Unveiling the Full Picture of South Asia’s Brick Kilns and Building the Blocks for Change.. 2017;1 International Labour Office; The Brooke Hospital for Animals; The Donkey Sanctuary; Geneva: ILO, London, UK.
  65. World Organisation for Animal Health. Terrestrial Animal Health Code. Chapter 7.12. Welfare of working equids.. 2016.
  66. Bateson M. Cumulative stress in research animals: Telomere attrition as a biomarker in a welfare context?. Bioessays 2016 Feb;38(2):201-12.
    doi: 10.1002/bies.201500127pmc: PMC4737400pubmed: 26645576google scholar: lookup
  67. Wolfensohn S, Sharpe S, Hall I, Lawrence S, Kitchen S, Dennis M. Refinement of welfare through development of a quantitative system for assessment of lifetime experience.. Anim Welf 2015. May;24(2): 139–49.
  68. Parker RA, Yeates JW. Assessment of quality of life in equine patients.. Equine Vet J 2012 Mar;44(2):244-9.
    doi: 10.1111/j.2042-3306.2011.00411.xpubmed: 21767299google scholar: lookup
  69. The Donkey Sanctuary. Under the Skin.. Jan 2017.
  70. Serg R, Fayez S, Said M. The life cycle of donkeys in the Egyptian brick kilns and the owners’ perception of euthanasia. Proceedings of the 7th International Colloquium on Working Equids. Royal Holloway, University of London 2014.
  71. Bekele M, Leggese G, Teshome W, Nahom W, Anteneh K, Tewodros T. Socioeconomic impact of epizootic lymphangitis in cart mules in Bahir Dar City, North West Ethiopia. Proceedings of the 7th International Colloquium on Working Equids. Royal Holloway, University of London 2014.
  72. Liszewski M. Theory of Change as a multi-use tool to streamline community-based human-behaviour change work.. First International Conference on Human Behaviour Change. September 2016, Dorking, UK.
  73. Kithuka J, Oloo V, Compston P. Clinical quality enhancement of donkey health service providers in Kenya using a work-based assessment rubric.. VetEd Symposium. July 2016. Glasgow, UK.
  74. Heleski CR, Anthony R. Science alone is not always enough: The importance of ethical assessment for a more comprehensive view of equine welfare.. J Vet Behav Clin Appl Res 2012;7(3): 169–78.
  75. Boissy A, Manteuffel G, Jensen MB, Moe RO, Spruijt B, Keeling LJ, Winckler C, Forkman B, Dimitrov I, Langbein J, Bakken M, Veissier I, Aubert A. Assessment of positive emotions in animals to improve their welfare.. Physiol Behav 2007 Oct 22;92(3):375-97.
    doi: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2007.02.003pubmed: 17428510google scholar: lookup
  76. Holcomb K, Tucker C, Stull C. Do horses benefit from provision of shade in hot, sunny weather, and do they prefer it?. 9th International Equitation Science Conference p 45. 17–20 July 2013, Newark, USA.
  77. de Vere AJ, Kuczaj SA 2nd. Where are we in the study of animal emotions?. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Cogn Sci 2016 Sep;7(5):354-62.
    doi: 10.1002/wcs.1399pubmed: 27327075google scholar: lookup

Citations

This article has been cited 35 times.
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join 99,780 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.