FREE SHIPPING over $40
OVER 10000 FIVE-STAR REVIEWS
5% OFF ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS
100% HAPPINESS GUARANTEE
Analyze Diet
0
PloS one2024; 19(6); e0304755; doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0304755

Common clinical findings identified in working equids in low- and middle-income countries from 2005 to 2021.

Abstract: Despite several millions of working equids worldwide, there are few published studies regarding the epidemiology of their health and welfare. Data collected by non-governmental organisations (NGOs) operating in the working equid sphere therefore have important epidemiological value and could be used towards animal health surveillance. The aim of this study was to identify common clinical findings and mortality patterns of working equids in low- and middle-income countries and investigate their epidemiology using data collected from an international NGO. A retrospective analysis was conducted to determine the proportion of clinical findings and mortality risk by equid species, year and region. Negative binomial regression models were generated to investigate differences in mortality risk and proportion of key clinical findings between equid species, hemispheres and calendar month. A total of 4,313,606 presentations were reported from 14 countries between January 2005 and March 2021 (mean 22,121; SD ± 7,858 per month). Wounds and abscesses were the most reported clinical finding for all equid species (mean proportion 35%; SD ±0.19 of all findings). A higher proportion of wounds (mean proportion 41.7%; SD±0.2) was recorded in donkeys than mules or horses (P<0.001). Mules had higher reported mortality risk (1.2%; 95% CI 0.94-1.46%) than horses (0.4%; 95% CI 0.36-0.55%; p<0.001) or donkeys (0.2%; 95% CI 0.14-0.22%). Work-related wounds were the predominant finding in working equids, particularly so in donkeys. Prevention strategies should focus on improvements to work equipment and practices for all equids. Future investigations required include refinement of diagnostic approaches for donkeys and investigation of risk factors to understand the higher mortality in mules. Routine monitoring of clinical findings reported by national or international NGOs could be included in animal health surveillance strategies, although standardisation of data for this purpose is needed so that changes in prevalence following implementation of prevention strategies can be monitored.
Copyright: © 2024 Merridale-Punter et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2024-06-05 PubMed ID: 38837970PubMed Central: PMC11152255DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0304755Google 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 research study explores the common health concerns and death risks of working equids (donkeys, mules, and horses) in low- and middle-income countries. The data comes from non-governmental organizations and reveals that work-related wounds are a significant issue, with the highest proportion noted in donkeys.

Objective and Methodology

  • The objective of this study was to understand the prevalent health issues and mortality patterns seen in working equids (donkeys, mules, and horses) found in low and middle-income nations, using the data gathered by a global non-governmental organization (NGO).
  • To achieve this research goal, the scholars conducted a retrospective analysis, determining the proportion of clinical findings and evaluating the risk of mortality according to the equid species, the year and the region.
  • In their analysis, the researchers used negative binomial regression models to investigate the difference in mortality risk and proportion of essential clinical findings based on equid species, geographical hemisphere, and calendar month.

Findings

  • The researchers utilized a total of 4,313,606 presentations reported from 14 nations between January 2005 and March 2021.
  • The most reported clinical finding for all species of equids were wounds and abscesses, comprising an average of 35% of all findings.
  • A higher proportion of wounds – roughly 41.7% – was recorded in donkeys, significantly higher than the number reported in mules or horses.
  • Mules were revealed to have a higher documented mortality risk at 1.2% compared to horses at 0.4% and donkeys at 0.2%.
  • Work-related injuries were identified as the predominant clinical health issue, especially in donkeys.

Recommendations

  • Prevention approaches should pay special attention to improving work equipment and practices for all equids to reduce the occurrence of work-related wounds.
  • Further investigations are necessary to improve diagnostic methods for donkeys and to comprehend the factors contributing to the higher mortality risk in mules.
  • Regular monitoring of clinical findings by national or international NGOs could be incorporated into animal health surveillance strategies, but data standardization is required to track any prevalence changes after implementing preventative strategies.

Cite This Article

APA
Merridale-Punter MS, Wiethoelter AK, El-Hage CM, Patrick C, Hitchens PL. (2024). Common clinical findings identified in working equids in low- and middle-income countries from 2005 to 2021. PLoS One, 19(6), e0304755. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0304755

Publication

PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
NlmUniqueID: 101285081
Country: United States
Language: English
Volume: 19
Issue: 6
Pages: e0304755

Researcher Affiliations

Merridale-Punter, Mathilde S
  • Melbourne Veterinary School, Faculty of Science, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.
Wiethoelter, Anke K
  • Melbourne Veterinary School, Faculty of Science, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.
El-Hage, Charles M
  • Melbourne Veterinary School, Faculty of Science, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.
Patrick, Cameron
  • Statistical Consulting Centre, School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.
Hitchens, Peta L
  • Equine Lameness and Imaging Centre, Melbourne Veterinary School, University of Melbourne, Werribee, Victoria, Australia.

MeSH Terms

  • Animals
  • Equidae
  • Developing Countries
  • Retrospective Studies
  • Horses
  • Horse Diseases / epidemiology
  • Horse Diseases / mortality

Conflict of Interest Statement

I have read the journal’s policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: MSMP works for the organisation from which data for this study was obtained.

References

This article includes 66 references
  1. FAO. FAOSTAT, Production Data, Live Animals. Food and agriculture data for over 245 countries and territories. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; 2019.
  2. 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.0247830pmc: PMC7906361pubmed: 33630957google scholar: lookup
  3. The World by Income and Region [Internet]. The World Bank. [cited 2021]. Available from: https://datatopics.worldbank.org/world-development-indicators/the-world-by-income-and-region.html.
  4. Sturgeon B. Working Animals–One Health, One Welfare. One Welfare in Practice p. 279–317.
  5. Arriaga-Jordán C, Pedraza-Fuentes A, Velázquez-Beltrán L, Nava-Bernal E, Chávez-Mejía M. Economic contribution of draught Animals to Mazahua smallholder campesino farming systems in the highlands of Central Mexico. Tropical Animal health and production 2005;37(7):589–97.
    doi: 10.1007/s11250-005-4177-3pubmed: 16450864google scholar: lookup
  6. Brooke T. Invisible Workers Report. The Brooke, UK; 2015. October 2015.
  7. Haben Fesseha M. Assessment of Socio-economic Importance and Major Constraints of Working Equines in and around Debre Berhan Town, Central Ethiopia. 2020.
  8. Bazezew M, Chanie M, Tesfaye T, Kassa A, Mekonnen B, Wagaw N. Lameness and associated risk factors in cart mules in northwestern Ethiopia. Glob Vet 2014;12:869–77.
  9. Haddy E, Burden F, Prado‐Ortiz O, Zappi H, Raw Z, Proops L. Comparison of working equid welfare across three regions of Mexico. Equine Veterinary Journal 2021;53(4):763–70.
    doi: 10.1111/evj.13349pubmed: 32920907google scholar: lookup
  10. Pritchard J, Lindberg A, Main D, Whay H. Assessment of the welfare of working horses, mules and donkeys, using health and behaviour parameters. Preventive veterinary medicine 2005;69(3–4):265–83.
    doi: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2005.02.002pubmed: 15907574google scholar: lookup
  11. Stringer AP, Christley RM, Bell C, Gebreab F, Tefera G, Reed K. Owner reported diseases of working equids in central Ethiopia. Equine veterinary journal 2017;49(4):501–6.
    doi: 10.1111/evj.12633pmc: PMC5484383pubmed: 27565130google 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. The Veterinary Journal 2010;186(3):385–92.
    doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2009.09.016pubmed: 19926316google scholar: lookup
  13. Clancy C, Watson T, Raw Z. Resilience and the role of equids in humanitarian crises. Disasters 2021.
    pmc: PMC9540358pubmed: 34255386
  14. Stringer A. Improving animal health for poverty alleviation and sustainable livelihoods. Veterinary Record 2014;175(21):526–9.
    doi: 10.1136/vr.g6281pubmed: 25431381google scholar: lookup
  15. Society for the Protection of Animals Abroad (SPANA) [Available from: http://www.spana.org.uk.
  16. The Brooke [Available from: https://www.thebrooke.org/.
  17. The Donkey Sanctuary [Available from: https://www.thedonkeysanctuary.org.uk/.
  18. World Horse Welfare [Available from: https://www.worldhorsewelfare.org/.
  19. R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2021.
  20. Brooks ME, Kristensen K, Van Benthem KJ, Magnusson A, Berg CW, Nielsen A. glmmTMB balances speed and flexibility among packages for zero-inflated generalized linear mixed modeling. The R journal 2017;9(2):378–400.
  21. Lorenz M, AG, Kokkelink D. Datawrapper: Create Charts and Maps. [Software]. Available from https://www.datawrapper.de/2012.
  22. Tinker MK, White N, Lessard P, Thatcher C, Pelzer K, Davis B. Prospective study of equine colic incidence and mortality. Equine veterinary journal 1997;29(6):448–53.
    doi: 10.1111/j.2042-3306.1997.tb03157.xpubmed: 9413717google scholar: lookup
  23. Egenvall A, Penell J, Bonnett B, Olson P, Pringle J. Mortality of Swedish horses with complete life insurance between 1997 and 2000: variations with sex, age, breed and diagnosis. Veterinary Record 2006;158(12):397–406.
    doi: 10.1136/vr.158.12.397pubmed: 16565338google scholar: lookup
  24. Savage VL, Christley R, Pinchbeck G, Morrison LJ, Hodgkinson J, Peachey LE. Co-infection with Trypanosoma congolense and Trypanosoma brucei is a significant risk factor for cerebral trypanosomosis in the equid population of the Gambia. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 2021;197:105507.
    doi: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2021.105507pubmed: 34673473google scholar: lookup
  25. Stringer AP. Infectious diseases of working equids. Veterinary Clinics: Equine Practice 2014;30(3):695–718.
    doi: 10.1016/j.cveq.2014.09.001pubmed: 25441116google scholar: lookup
  26. Kay G, Knottenbelt D. Tetanus in equids: a report of 56 cases. Equine Veterinary Education 2007;19(2):107–12.
  27. McLean AK. Improving donkey (Equus asinus) welfare through enhanced management, training and education with emphasis in Mali, West Africa. Michigan State University; 2010.
  28. Singh A, Pal Y, Kumar R, Kumar S, Rani K, Prasad J. Working Equids: Their Conditions, Invisible Earning and Challenges-A Review. 2021.
  29. Ali AB, Matoock MY, Fouad MA, Heleski CR. Are mules or donkeys better adapted for Egyptian brick kiln work?(Until we can change the kilns). Journal of Veterinary Behavior 2015;10(2):158–65.
  30. Watson T, Kubasiewicz LM, Nye C, Thapa S, Norris SL, Chamberlain N. “Not All Who Wander Are Lost”: The Life Transitions and Associated Welfare of Pack Mules Walking the Trails in the Mountainous Gorkha Region, Nepal. Animals 2022;12(22):3152.
    doi: 10.3390/ani12223152pmc: PMC9686551pubmed: 36428381google scholar: lookup
  31. Sells P, Pinchbeck G, Mezzane H, Ibourki J, Crane M. Pack wounds of donkeys and mules in the Northern High Atlas and lowlands of Morocco. Equine veterinary journal 2010;42(3):219–26.
    doi: 10.2746/042516409X478532pubmed: 20486978google scholar: lookup
  32. Rayner EL, Airikkala‐Otter I, Susheelan A, Mellanby RJ, Meunier NV, Gibson A. Prevalence of mutilations and other skin wounds in working donkeys in Tamil Nadu, India. Veterinary Record 2018;183(14):450–.
    doi: 10.1136/vr.104863pubmed: 30121636google scholar: lookup
  33. Rodrigues JB, Sullivan RJ, Judge A, Norris SL, Burden FA. Quantifying poor working equid welfare in Nepalese brick kilns using a welfare assessment tool. Veterinary Record 2020;187(11):445-.
    doi: 10.1136/vr.106135pubmed: 33115919google scholar: lookup
  34. Birhan G, Chanie M, Tesfaye T, Kassa A, Mekonnen B, Wagaw N. Incidence of wound and associated risk factors in working donkeys in Yilmana Densa District. Global Veterinaria 2014;13(1):133–40.
  35. Rayner E, Airikkala‐Otter I, Susheelan A, Gibson A, Itaba R, Mayani T. Prevalence of skin wounds in working donkeys in Bukombe, Tanzania. Veterinary Record 2020;186(9):284–.
    doi: 10.1136/vr.105399pubmed: 31554710google scholar: lookup
  36. Teferi M, Tesfaye R, Zewdu H, Gemechu G, Tefera G, Ashine T. Prevalence of wound, its associated risk factors and wound management practices in carthorses of ten selected towns of Ethiopia. Ethiopian Veterinary Journal 2020;24(2):1–15.
  37. Nejash A, Endale T, Abdi H, Feyissa BD. Prevalence and associated risk factors of equine wound in and around Asella town, South Eastern Ethiopia. Journal of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Health 2017;9(4):63–71.
  38. Farhat SF, McLean AK, Mahmoud HF. Welfare assessment and identification of the associated risk factors compromising the welfare of working donkeys (Equus asinus) in egyptian brick kilns. Animals 2020;10(9):1611.
    doi: 10.3390/ani10091611pmc: PMC7552282pubmed: 32917031google scholar: lookup
  39. Chala F, Ayele B, Tariku T. Prevalence of Work Related Wound and the Associated Risk Factors in Cart Horses in Bishoftu Town, Central Ethiopia. Prevalence 2017;7(17).
  40. Heleski C, McLean A, Swanson J, Grandin T. Practical methods for improving the welfare of horses, donkeys and other working draught animals in developing areas. Improving Welfare: a practical approach 2009:252–73.
  41. Sánchez-Casanova RE, Masri-Daba M, Alonso-Díaz MÁ, Méndez-Bernal A, Hernández-Gil M, Fernando-Martínez JA. Prevalence of cutaneous pathological conditions and factors associated with the presence of skin wounds in working equids in tropical regions of Veracruz, Mexico. Tropical animal health and production 2014;46(3):555–61.
    doi: 10.1007/s11250-013-0529-6pubmed: 24488621google scholar: lookup
  42. Fernando P, Starkey P. Donkeys and development: Socio-economic aspects of donkey use in Africa. Donkeys, People and Development A Resource Book in the Animal Traction Network for Eastern and Southern Africa (ATNESA) 2004:15.
  43. Geiger M, Hockenhull J, Buller H, Tefera Engida G, Getachew M, Burden FA. Understanding the attitudes of communities to the social, economic, and cultural importance of working donkeys in rural, peri-urban, and urban areas of Ethiopia. Frontiers in veterinary science 2020;7:60.
    doi: 10.3389/fvets.2020.00060pmc: PMC7033506pubmed: 32118074google scholar: lookup
  44. Lanas R, Luna D, Tadich T. The relationship between working horse welfare and their owners’ socioeconomic status. Animal Welfare 2018;27(1):47–54.
  45. Ashley F, Waterman‐Pearson A, Whay H. Behavioural assessment of pain in horses and donkeys: application to clinical practice and future studies. Equine veterinary journal 2005;37(6):565–75.
    doi: 10.2746/042516405775314826pubmed: 16295937google scholar: lookup
  46. van Dierendonck MC, Burden FA, Rickards K, van Loon JP. Monitoring acute pain in donkeys with the equine utrecht university scale for donkeys composite pain assessment (equus-donkey-compass) and the equine utrecht university scale for donkey facial assessment of pain (Equus-Donkey-Fap). Animals 2020;10(2):354.
    doi: 10.3390/ani10020354pmc: PMC7070438pubmed: 32098391google scholar: lookup
  47. Orth EK, Navas González FJ, Iglesias Pastrana C, Berger JM, Jeune SSl, Davis EW. Development of a donkey grimace scale to recognize pain in donkeys (Equus asinus) post castration. Animals 2020;10(8):1411.
    doi: 10.3390/ani10081411pmc: PMC7459673pubmed: 32823676google scholar: lookup
  48. Grint N, Murrell J, Whay H. Investigating the opinions of donkey owners and veterinary surgeons towards pain and analgesia in donkeys. Equine Veterinary Education 2015;27(7):365–71.
  49. Merridale‐Punter MS, Prutton JS, Stefanovski D, Worsman FC, Payne RJ, Wylie CE. Outcome following emergency laparotomy in 33 UK donkeys: A retrospective multicentre study. Equine Veterinary Journal 2022.
    doi: 10.1111/evj.13578pubmed: 35478419google scholar: lookup
  50. Burden F, Thiemann A. Donkeys are different. Journal of Equine Veterinary Science 2015;35(5):376–82.
  51. Krecek RC, Waller PJ. Towards the implementation of the “basket of options” approach to helminth parasite control of livestock: emphasis on the tropics/subtropics. Veterinary Parasitology 2006;139(4):270–82.
    doi: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2006.04.018pubmed: 16764993google scholar: lookup
  52. Hamed MI, El-Allawy TA, Hassnein E. Prevalence and anthelmintic resistance of strongyle infection of donkeys in El-Wadi El-Gadid, Egypt. Journal of Advanced Veterinary Research 2019;9(4):144–50.
  53. Rendle D, Austin C, Bowen M, Cameron I, Furtado T, Hodgkinson J. Equine de-worming: a consensus on current best practice. UK-Vet Equine 2019;3(Sup1):1–14.
  54. Kaplan RM. Anthelmintic resistance in nematodes of horses. Veterinary research 2002;33(5):491–507.
    doi: 10.1051/vetres:2002035pubmed: 12387486google scholar: lookup
  55. Kaplan R, Nielsen M. An evidence‐based approach to equine parasite control: It ain’t the 60s anymore. Equine Veterinary Education 2010;22(6):306–16.
  56. Kaplan RM. Drug resistance in nematodes of veterinary importance: a status report. Trends in parasitology 2004;20(10):477–81.
    doi: 10.1016/j.pt.2004.08.001pubmed: 15363441google scholar: lookup
  57. Nielsen M, Reinemeyer C, Donecker J, Leathwick D, Marchiondo A, Kaplan R. Anthelmintic resistance in equine parasites—Current evidence and knowledge gaps. Veterinary parasitology 2014;204(1–2):55–63.
    doi: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2013.11.030pubmed: 24433852google scholar: lookup
  58. Kaplan RM, Vidyashankar AN. An inconvenient truth: global worming and anthelmintic resistance. Veterinary parasitology 2012;186(1–2):70–8.
    doi: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2011.11.048pubmed: 22154968google scholar: lookup
  59. Nielsen MK, Kaplan RM, Thamsborg SM, Monrad J, Olsen SN. Climatic influences on development and survival of free-living stages of equine strongyles: implications for worm control strategies and managing anthelmintic resistance. The Veterinary Journal 2007;174(1):23–32.
    doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2006.05.009pubmed: 16815051google scholar: lookup
  60. Fesseha H, Mathewos M, Kidanemariam F. Anthelmintic efficacy of Strongyle nematodes to ivermectin and fenbendazole on working donkeys (Equus asinus) in and around hosaena town, southern Ethiopia. Veterinary Medicine International 2020;2020.
    pmc: PMC7532375pubmed: 33029340
  61. Furtado T, Rendle D. Creating environments for change: are there new ways to approach horse keeper behaviour in equine parasite control?. Veterinary Record 2021;189(5):197–9.
    doi: 10.1002/vetr.906pubmed: 34505681google scholar: lookup
  62. Krecek R, Guthrie A. Alternative approaches to control of cyathostomes: an African perspective. Veterinary Parasitology 1999;85(2–3):151–62.
    doi: 10.1016/s0304-4017(99)00095-3pubmed: 10485361google scholar: lookup
  63. Matthews JB. Anthelmintic resistance in equine nematodes. International Journal for Parasitology: Drugs and Drug Resistance 2014;4(3):310–5.
    doi: 10.1016/j.ijpddr.2014.10.003pmc: PMC4266799pubmed: 25516842google scholar: lookup
  64. Stringer A, Lunn D, Reid S. Science in brief: R eport on the first H avemeyer workshop on infectious diseases in working equids, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, November 2013. Wiley Online Library; 2015. p. 6–9.
    pubmed: 25257182
  65. Getachew A, Burden F, Wernery U. Common infectious diseases of working donkeys: their epidemiological and zoonotic role. Journal of Equine Veterinary Science 2016(39):S107.
  66. Allan FK. A Landscaping Analysis of Working Equid Population Numbers in LMICs, with Policy Recommendations. Royal School of Veterinary Studies, University of Edinburgh; 2021.

Citations

This article has been cited 2 times.
  1. 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
  2. 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
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join 99,780 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.