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) / Comparing and Contrasting Knowledge on Mules and Hinnies as ...
Animals : an open access journal from MDPI2019; 9(8); doi: 10.3390/ani9080488

Comparing and Contrasting Knowledge on Mules and Hinnies as a Tool to Comprehend Their Behavior and Improve Their Welfare.

Abstract: Mules and hinnies are the hybrids between donkeys (Equus asinus) and horses (Equus caballus). For centuries, mankind has used them for agrarian purposes, the military, or recreation. Contrasting literature with behavioral observations, we seek a better behavioral understanding andthus comprehensive solutions for their welfare enhancement. Over the past 6 years, we have assessed physical and behavioral welfare in over 900 mules by surveying owners from Egypt, Peru, Portugal, Spain, Mexico, and the U.S. These mules participated in shows, brick kiln work, cart-pulling, packing, tourism, and cattle herding. Observations are discussed alongside facts from the literature. Unfortunately, their behavior has been misunderstood by many, and harsh treatment and equipment has been used to control them. Few studies have attempted to define or use learning theory to understand how and why mules and hinnies behave as they do. Hence, understanding their health considerations, natural behavior, and training theory is crucial for those who work with them.Solutions to welfare improvement partially lie in an individual's ability to handle mules and hinnies from birth, and to proceed slowly through training. Conclusively, this review sets forth a clearer understanding of these hybrids' behaviors and promotes positive handling, allowing their access to more routine healthcare and ultimately, a higher welfare standard.
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2019-07-26 PubMed ID: 31357421PubMed Central: PMC6719969DOI: 10.3390/ani9080488Google 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
  • Review

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 article focuses on the behavior and welfare of mules and hinnies, using behavioral observations and literature to enhance understanding and propose strategies for their improved welfare. Over six years, the study surveyed owners of over 900 mules across various countries and involved in various activities.

Research Methodology

  • The study was conducted over a period of 6 years, assessing both the physical and behavioral welfare of over 900 mules.
  • Mules were located in various countries, including Egypt, Peru, Portugal, Spain, Mexico, and the U.S.
  • The mules surveyed were involved in a range of activities such as shows, brick kiln work, cart-pulling, packing, tourism, and cattle herding.

Observations vs Literature

  • Findings from the research were compared and contrasted with existing literature on mules and hinnies.
  • Such a comparison allowed the researchers to gain a deeper and more nuanced understanding of these animals’ behavior.

Misunderstandings and Mistreatment

  • One of the findings was that the behavior of mules and hinnies has often been misunderstood.
  • This misunderstanding has led to harsh treatment and the use of inappropriate equipment to control them.
  • The study highlights the necessity for more targeted research that utilizes learning theory to understand the behavior of these hybrids.

Important Aspects of Welfare Enhancement

  • The research emphasizes the cruciality of understanding the health considerations, natural behavior, and training theory for those who work with mules and hinnies.
  • Improvement in welfare is linked to an individual’s ability to handle these animals from birth and to proceed slowly with their training.

Conclusions and Recommendations

  • The review paper concludes with a call for a clearer understanding of the behaviors of mules and hinnies.
  • It emphasizes the promotion of positive handling, allowing these animals access to routine healthcare and higher welfare standards.

Cite This Article

APA
McLean A, Varnum A, Ali A, Heleski C, Navas González FJ. (2019). Comparing and Contrasting Knowledge on Mules and Hinnies as a Tool to Comprehend Their Behavior and Improve Their Welfare. Animals (Basel), 9(8). https://doi.org/10.3390/ani9080488

Publication

Animals : an open access journal from MDPI
ISSN: 2076-2615
NlmUniqueID: 101635614
Country: Switzerland
Language: English
Volume: 9
Issue: 8

Researcher Affiliations

McLean, Amy
  • Department of Animal Science, University of California-Davis, Davis, CA 95616, USA. acmclean@ucdavis.edu.
Varnum, Angela
  • College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523, USA.
Ali, Ahmed
  • Department of Animal Science, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA.
  • Department of Animal and Veterinary Sciences, Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29634, USA.
Heleski, Camie
  • Department of Animal and Food Science, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40506, USA.
Navas González, Francisco Javier
  • Department of Genetics, Veterinary Sciences, University of Cordoba, 14071 Córdoba, Spain.

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

This article includes 65 references
  1. Valette D. Invisible Helpers. The economic contributions of working donkeys, horses and mules to livelihoods.. .
  2. Fernando P, Starkey M. Donkeys and development: Socio-economic aspects of donkey use in Africa.. Donkeys, People and Development: A Resource Book of the Animal Traction Network for Eastern and Southern Africa (ATNESA) 2004;pp. 31–44.
  3. McKenna C. Bearing a Heavy Burden.. 2007.
  4. 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;186:385–392.
    doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2009.09.016pubmed: 19926316google scholar: lookup
  5. Silva GA, Rodrigues LM, Monteiro BS, de Souza VR, Manso Filho HC, Coelho CS. Effect of a Marcha Field Test on Some Blood and Electrocardiographic Parameters of Mules.. J. Equine Vet. Sci. 2018;70:42–47.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jevs.2018.08.009google scholar: lookup
  6. USDA. Equine 2015 Baseline Reference of Equine Health and Management in the United States.. .
  7. Taylor TS, Matthews NS. Donkey and Mule Scenarios: When to stop, think, read or call.. Proc. Am. Assoc. Equine Pract. 2002;48:115–116.
  8. Burnham SL. Anatomical differences of the donkey and mule.. Proc. Am. Assoc. Equine Pract. 2002;48:102–109.
  9. Mclean AK, Navas Gonzalez FJ. Can scientists influence donkey welfare? Historical perspective and a contemporary view.. J. Equine Vet. Sci. 2018;65:25–32.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jevs.2018.03.008google scholar: lookup
  10. McLean AK, Ali A, Heleski CR. Behavioral observations and owner perceptions of working mules in three different countries.. Proceedings of the 14th International Equitation Science Society 2018;p. 154.
  11. Burden F, Thiemann A. Donkeys Are Different.. J. Equine Vet. Sci. 2015;35:376–382.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jevs.2015.03.005google scholar: lookup
  12. Osthaus B, Proops L, Hocking I, Burden F. Spatial cognition and perseveration by horses, donkeys and mules in a simple A-not-B detour task.. Anim. Cogn. 2013;16:301–305.
    doi: 10.1007/s10071-012-0589-4pubmed: 23271641google scholar: lookup
  13. Proops L, Burden F, Osthaus B. Mule cognition: A case hybrid vigour?. Anim. Cogn. 2009;12:75–84.
    doi: 10.1007/s10071-008-0172-1pubmed: 18636282google scholar: lookup
  14. Bott R, McLean A, Heleski C. Community-based participatory research interfaced with equine welfare assessment to learn about working equids and their owners in Vera Cruz, Mexico.. Proceedings of the 7th International Colloquium on Working Equid 2014.
  15. McLean AK, Ali A, Heleski CR. Mule behavior a mirror image of human behavior and handling techniques.. Proceedings of the 10th Animals for Asia Conference: Facilitating Human Change to Improve Animal Welfare 2017.
  16. Pritchard JC, Lindberg AC, Main DCJ, Whay HR. Assessment of the welfare of working horses, mules and donkeys, using health parameters.. Prev. Vet. Med. 2005;69:265–283.
    doi: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2005.02.002pubmed: 15907574google scholar: lookup
  17. Proops L, Burden F, Osthaus B. Social relations in a mixed group of mules, ponies, and donkeys reflect differences in equid type.. Behav. Process. 2012;90:337–342.
    doi: 10.1016/j.beproc.2012.03.012pubmed: 22709577google scholar: lookup
  18. Abascal Palazón JM. Presencia Romana en las Tierras de Guadalajara.. 1984.
  19. Cortés JC. Geografía agraria de Utiel (Valencia). Estud. Geogr. 1963;24:199.
  20. Farissier S. L’âne.. 2007.
  21. Ali A, Matoock MY, Fouad MA, 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. 2015;176:52–62.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2015.12.001google scholar: lookup
  22. Ali BAA, Matoock MY, Fouad MA, Heleski CR. Are mules or donkeys better adapted for Egyptian brick kiln work? (Until we can change the kilns). J. Vet. Behav. 2014;10:158–165.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jveb.2014.12.003google scholar: lookup
  23. Grognier LF. Cours de Multiplication et de Perfectionnement des Principaux Animaux Domestiques.. 1834;p. 525.
  24. Moll L, Gayot EN. La Connaissance Générale du Cheval: Études de Zootechnie Pratique, Avec un Atlas de 160 Pages et de 103 Figures.. 1861;p. 172.
  25. Salazar Z. Mulos Castellanos y Romos.. Hojas Divulg. Minist. Agric. Serv. Capacit. Propag. 1948;18:5–16.
  26. McLean A, Heleski CR, Ali A. A husbandry guide for mules and hinnies: A method to improve understanding through participatory approaches. Proceedings of the Spana’s Working Animal Conference 2017.
  27. Hunter P. The silence of genes: Is genomic imprinting the software of evolution or just a battleground for gender conflict?. EMBO Rep. 2007;8:441–443.
    doi: 10.1038/sj.embor.7400965pmc: PMC1866201pubmed: 17471258google scholar: lookup
  28. McLean AK. Comparing the physiological and biochemical parameters of mules and hinnies to horses and donkeys.. Proceedings of the International Hydra Mule and Donkey Conference 2014.
  29. Losinno L. Epigenética gestacional en la yegua. Implicaciones para el conocimiento y manejo de la gestación y la cría. Impacto potencial en los potrillos. Sexaje de semen con nanopartículas. Proceedings of the IX Seminario Internacional de Medicina, Cirugía, Ortopedia y Reproducción Equina 2018.
  30. Powledge TM. Behavioral epigenetics: How nurture shapes nature.. BioScience 2011;61:588–592.
    doi: 10.1525/bio.2011.61.8.4google scholar: lookup
  31. Shi W. Growth and Behaviour: Epigenetic and Genetic Factors Involved in Hybrid Dysgenesis.. 2005.
  32. McGovern PT. The Barriers to Interspecific Hybridization in Domestic and Laboratory Mammals. I. Gametic Isolation and Hybrid Inviability.. Br. Vet. J. 1975;131:691–706.
    doi: 10.1016/S0007-1935(17)35141-2pubmed: 1212607google scholar: lookup
  33. Allen WR. Maternal recognition of pregnancy and immunological implications of trophoblast- endometrium interactions in equids.. Maternal Recognition of Pregnancy 2009;pp. 323–346.
    pubmed: 259042
  34. Burton AJ, Mittel LD, Merriam J. Emergency Treatment of Mules and Donkeys.. Equine Emergencies 2013;pp. 646–651.
  35. Burton AJ, Divers TJ, Orsini JA. Treatment and Procedures.. Equine Emergencies 2008;pp. 705–708.
  36. McLean AK, Wang W, Navas-Gonzalez FJ, Rodrigues JB. Reference intervals for hematology and blood biochemistry reference values for healthy mules and hinnies.. Comp. Clin. Pathol. 2016;25:871–878.
    doi: 10.1007/s00580-016-2276-3google scholar: lookup
  37. Makino S. Notes on the cytological feature of male sterility in the mule.. Experientia 1955;11:224–226.
    doi: 10.1007/BF02160466pubmed: 13241466google scholar: lookup
  38. Burden F. Practical feeding and condition scoring for donkeys and mules.. Equine Vet. Educ. 2011;24:589–596.
    doi: 10.1111/j.2042-3292.2011.00314.xgoogle scholar: lookup
  39. Matthews N, van Loon JPA M. Anesthesia and analgesia of the donkey and the mule.. Equine Vet. Educ. 2011;25:47–51.
    doi: 10.1111/j.2042-3292.2011.00312.xgoogle scholar: lookup
  40. Morales A, Méndez A, Pérez J. Cresty neck deformation in donkeys of Andalucia and Extremadura, Spain.. Arch. Zootec. 2018;67:570–576.
    doi: 10.21071/az.v0i0.3889google scholar: lookup
  41. Bachmann Rieder I. Pferde in der Schweiz Prävalenz und Ursache von Verhaltensstörungen unter Berücksichtigung der Haltung und Nutzung.. 2002.
  42. McKinnon-Roberts CK. The Hard to Catch Mule: A Logical Approach on How to Connect with Your Mule.. 2012;p. 114.
  43. Sowar NAMA. Investigation of Parasites of Working Donkeys in Khartoum State, Sudan.. 2006.
  44. Gastal MMFO. Seminal Study and Sexual Behaviour of the Hinnies.. 1991.
  45. Bowen MT, Hari Dass SA, Booth J, Suraev A, Vyas A, McGregor IS. Active coping toward predatory stress is associated with lower corticosterone and progesterone plasma levels and decreased methylation in the medial amygdala vasopressin system.. Horm. Behav. 2014;66:561–566.
    doi: 10.1016/j.yhbeh.2014.08.004pubmed: 25127982google scholar: lookup
  46. Greidanus TBVW, Wijnen H, Deurloo J, De Wied D. Analysis of the effect of progesterone on avoidance behavior.. Horm. Behav. 1973;4:19–30.
    doi: 10.1016/0018-506X(73)90013-5google scholar: lookup
  47. Steimer T, Driscoll P, Schulz PE. Brain Metabolism of Progesterone, Coping Behaviour and Emotional Reactivity in Male Rats from Two Psychogenetically Selected Lines.. J. Neuroendocrinol. 1997;9:169–175.
    doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2826.1997.t01-1-00571.xpubmed: 9089467google scholar: lookup
  48. Ali BA, Mohammed A, Sayed EL, McLean AK, Heleski CR. Aggression in working mules and subsequent aggressive treatment by their handlers in Egyptian brick kilns-cause or effect?. J. Vet. Behav. 2018;29:95–101.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jveb.2018.05.008google scholar: lookup
  49. Henry S, Richard-Yris M-A, Tordjman S, Hausberger M. Neonatal Handling Affects Durably Bonding and Social Development.. PLoS ONE 2009;4:e5216.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0005216pmc: PMC2662428pubmed: 19352503google scholar: lookup
  50. Miller RM. Understanding the differences.. West. Mule Mag. 2007;12:28–29.
  51. Taylor TS, Matthews NS. Mammoth assess-selected behavioural considerations for the veterinarian.. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 1998;60:283–289.
    doi: 10.1016/S0168-1591(98)00177-4google scholar: lookup
  52. Monsees LM, Morton WE, Hineman G. Jacks, Jennets and mules in the United States, Folder Number 2.. Standard Jack and Jennet Registry of America 1955.
  53. National Research Council. Donkeys and Other Equids.. Nutrient Requirements of Horses 2007;pp. 268–279.
  54. Haines A, Goliszek J. Donkey and mule behaviour for the veterinary team.. UK-Vet Equine 2019;3:27–32.
    doi: 10.12968/ukve.2019.3.1.27google scholar: lookup
  55. Ali AB, Gutwein KL, Heleski CR. Assessing the influence of upper lip twitching in naive horses during an aversive husbandry procedure (ear clipping). J. Vet. Behav. 2017;21:20–25.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jveb.2017.07.001google scholar: lookup
  56. Vreeman H. The Twitch in Donkeys.. 2009.
  57. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Horses, donkeys and mules.. A Manual for the Primary Animal Health Care Worker 1994.
  58. Fowler ME. Horses, donkeys, mules.. Restraint & Handling of Wild & Domestic Animals 2008.
  59. McGreevy P. Equine Behavior: A Guide for Veterinarians and Equine Scientists.. 2012.
  60. McCarthy R, Jeffcott L, Clarke I. Preliminary studies on the use of plasma β-endorphin in horses as an indicator of stress and pain.. J. Equine Vet. Sci. 1993;13:216–219.
    doi: 10.1016/S0737-0806(06)81015-4google scholar: lookup
  61. Lagerweij E, Nelis PC, Wiegant VM, Van Ree JM. The twitch in horses: A variant of acupuncture.. Science 1984;225:1172–1174.
    doi: 10.1126/science.6089344pubmed: 6089344google scholar: lookup
  62. McDonnell S. Twitch Efficacy and Endorphin Levels.. .
  63. Henderson A. Ten facts about twitches: Three phases of a twitched horse. Horse-Canada 2017;pp. 40–42.
  64. Andrade O, Orihuela A, Solano J, Galina C. Some effects of repeated handling and the use of a mask on stress responses in zebu cattle during restraint.. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2001;71:175–181.
    doi: 10.1016/S0168-1591(00)00177-5pubmed: 11230898google scholar: lookup
  65. Grandin T. Livestock Handling and Transport.. 1993;pp. 43–94.
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join 99,344 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.