FREE SHIPPING over $40
OVER 9000 FIVE-STAR REVIEWS
5% OFF ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS
100% HAPPINESS GUARANTEE
Analyze Diet
0
Home / Equine Research Bank / Equine Vet J / Comparison of working equid welfare across three regions of ...
Equine veterinary journal2020; 53(4); 763-770; doi: 10.1111/evj.13349

Comparison of working equid welfare across three regions of Mexico.

Abstract: Factors affecting working equid welfare are wide-ranging and reflect cultural, economic and climatic conditions, the type of work equids are used for, and individual differences in the practices of their handlers. In Mexico working equids are widely used for facilitating agricultural activities, however, welfare issues are common. Objective: To assess working equids across three communities in Mexico, identify predominant welfare problems and document how these problems vary across locations, associated working roles and species type. Methods: Cross-sectional survey. Methods: The study combined the administration of a wide-ranging questionnaire to equid handlers/owners and a welfare assessment of their animal. 120 equid owners were asked about their equid management practices, the working conditions and health status of their animal. The welfare of their equids (56 donkeys, 7 mules, 57 horses) was assessed by evaluating body condition, signs of illness or injury and behavioural indicators. Results: Welfare varied by species, working role, sex and location. The poorest welfare was seen in one of the two arid regions (the third location having a tropical climate). Donkeys had poorer welfare than horses, and equids used for packing had poorer welfare than those used for riding and agroforestry. Overall poor body condition and wounds were the most common problems seen. Conclusions: Work type, species type and location strongly co-varied, thus the impact of each factor could not be assessed in isolation. The sample size was relatively small. Conclusions: Results showed significant regional variations in welfare, suggesting that environmental and/or cultural variations are producing a major effect on welfare.
© 2020 The Authors. Equine Veterinary Journal published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of EVJ Ltd.
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2020-10-06 PubMed ID: 32920907DOI: 10.1111/evj.13349Google 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.

The research paper thoroughly investigates and compares the welfare of working equids (i.e. donkeys, mules and horses) in three different communities in Mexico. It determines the influence of species type, work type, and location on equid welfare and identifies primary welfare issues.

Research Methodology

  • The researchers conducted a cross-sectional survey in three different communities in Mexico. Each of these locales had differing climates: two arid and one tropical.
  • The study involved two main components: a comprehensive questionnaire for equid handlers/owners and a welfare assessment of the equids themselves.
  • The questionnaire enabled researchers to gather information about equid management practices, working conditions, and health status from 120 equid owners.
  • The welfare assessment took into account body condition, signs of illness or injury, and behavioural indicators. It was conducted on a total of 120 equids – 56 donkeys, 7 mules, and 57 horses.

Key Findings

  • Equid welfare varied notably by species type, work type, sex, and location.
  • Donkeys exhibited poorer welfare compared to horses. Also, equids used for packing jobs had poorer welfare than those used for riding and agroforestry roles.
  • The highest level of poor welfare was observed in one of the two arid regions.
  • The most commonly observed issues compromising equid welfare were poor body conditions and wounds.

Conclusion and Challenges

  • Work type, species type, and location were noted to strongly co-vary, making it challenging to evaluate the isolation impact of each individual factor on equid welfare.
  • The small sample size could also constitute a limitation in this study.
  • Nevertheless, the research unveils significant regional disparities in equid welfare, which strongly suggests that environmental and cultural variations greatly affect equid welfare.

Cite This Article

APA
Haddy E, Burden F, Prado-Ortiz O, Zappi H, Raw Z, Proops L. (2020). Comparison of working equid welfare across three regions of Mexico. Equine Vet J, 53(4), 763-770. https://doi.org/10.1111/evj.13349

Publication

Equine veterinary journal
ISSN: 2042-3306
NlmUniqueID: 0173320
Country: United States
Language: English
Volume: 53
Issue: 4
Pages: 763-770

Researcher Affiliations

Haddy, Emily
  • Centre for Comparative and Evolutionary Psychology, Department of Psychology, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, UK.
Burden, Faith
  • The Donkey Sanctuary, Sidmouth, Devon, UK.
Prado-Ortiz, Omar
  • Facultad de Medicina Veterinaria y Zootecnia, Programma Donkey Sanctuary-Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico, D.F. Mexico, Mexico.
Zappi, Humberto
  • Facultad de Medicina Veterinaria y Zootecnia, Programma Donkey Sanctuary-Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico, D.F. Mexico, Mexico.
Raw, Zoe
  • The Donkey Sanctuary, Sidmouth, Devon, UK.
Proops, Leanne
  • Centre for Comparative and Evolutionary Psychology, Department of Psychology, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, UK.

MeSH Terms

  • Animal Welfare
  • Animals
  • Cross-Sectional Studies
  • Equidae
  • Horses
  • Mexico
  • Surveys and Questionnaires

Grant Funding

  • 1956591 / Economic and Social Research Council
  • 18366 / The Donkey Sanctuary

References

This article includes 29 references
  1. FAOSTAT. FAO Statistical Year Book. Food and Agricultural Organisation of the United Nations 2011.
  2. Pritchard JC, Lindberg AC, Main DCJ, Whay HR. Assessment of the welfare of working horses, mules and donkeys, using health and behaviour parameters. Prev Vet Med 2005;69:265-83.
  3. Stringer A. Improving animal health for poverty alleviation and sustainable livelihoods. Vet Rec 2014;175:526-9.
  4. Upjohn MM, Pfeiffer DU, Verheyen KLP. Helping working Equidae and their owners in developing countries: monitoring and evaluation of evidence-based interventions. Vet J 2014;199:210-6.
  5. Burn CC, Dennison TL, Whay HR. Relationships between behaviour and health in working horses, donkeys, and mules in developing countries. Appl Anim Behav Sci 2010;126:109-18.
  6. 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;186:385-92.
  7. Curran MM, Feseha G, Smith DG. The impact of access to animal health services on donkey health and livelihoods in Ethiopia. Trop Anim Health Prod 2005;37:47-65.
  8. The World Bank. Mexico. 2019.
  9. The Brooke. Invisible Workers The economic contributions of working donkeys, Horses and Mules to Livelihoods. 2015.
  10. Velázquez-Beltrán LG, Sánchez-Vera E, Nava-Bernal EG, Arriaga-Jordán CM. The role of working equines to livelihoods in current day campesino hill-slope communities in central Mexico. Trop Anim Health Prod 2011;43:1623-32.
  11. de Aluja AS. The welfare of working equids in Mexico. Appl Anim Behav Sci 1998;59:19-29.
  12. González-Díaz J, Velázquez-Beltrán L, Espinoza Ortega A, Arriaga-Jordán C. Draught animals in small-holder (campesino) farming systems in the Highlands of Central México. Draught Animal News 1994;21:7-10.
  13. Velazques-Beltran LG, Felipe-Perez YE, Arriaga-Jordan CM. Common vetch (Vicia sativa) for improving the nutrition of working equids in campesino systems on hill slopes in central Mexico. Trop Anim Health Prod 2002;34:169-79.
  14. Kottek M, Grieser J, Beck C, Rudolf B, Rubel F. World Map of the Koppen-Geiger climate classification updated. Meteorol Zeitschrift 2006;15:259-63.
  15. Raw Z, Rodrigues JB, Rickards K, Ryding J, Norris SL, Judge A. Equid assessment, research and scoping (EARS): the development and implementation of a new equid welfare assessment and monitoring tool. Animals 2020;10:297.
  16. Hartung C, Lerer A, Anokwa Y, Tseng C, Brunette W, Borriello G. Open data kit: tools to build information services for developing regions. .
  17. García-Pérez MA, Nunez-Anton V. Cellwise residual analysis in two-way contingency tables. Educ Psychol Meas 2003;63:825-39.
  18. Haddy E, Burden F, Prado-Ortiz O, Zappi H, Raw Z, Proops L. Working equid welfare Mexico data. Pure Data Repos .
    doi: 10.17029/86cb3171-f0c7-45b7-bb39-4958a6663e40google scholar: lookup
  19. Sánchez-Casanova R, Masri-Daba M, Alonso-Díaz M, Méndez-Bernal A, Hernández-Gil M, Fernando-Martinez J. Ethnoveterinary practices used by owners of working equids with dermal disorders from tropical regions of Veracruz, Mexico. Indian J Tradit Knowl 2015;14:344-50.
  20. Sánchez-Casanova RE, Masri-Daba M, Alonso-Diaz MA, Mendez-Bernal A, Hernandez-Gil M, Fernando-Martinez J. Prevalence of cutaneous pathological conditions and factors associated with the presence of skin wounds in working equids in tropical regions of Veracruz, Mexico. Trop Anim Health Prod 2014;46:555-61.
  21. Proops L, Osthaus B, Bell N, Long S, Hayday K, Burden F. Shelter seeking behaviour of donkeys and horses in a temperate climate. J Vet Behav 2019;32:16-23.
  22. Bott-Knutson RC, Mclean A, Heleski CR. Community-based participatory research interfaced with equine welfare assessment to learn about working equids and their owners in Vera Cruz, Mexico. .
  23. Usman S, Disassa H, Kabeta T, Zenebe T, Kebede G. Health and welfare related assessment of working equine in and around Batu Town, East Shoa, Central Ethiopia. Nat Sci 13:1-8.
  24. Reix CE, Burn CC, Pritchard JC, Barr ARS, Whay HR. The range and prevalence of clinical signs and conformation associated with lameness in working draught donkeys in Pakistan. Equine Vet J 2014;46:771-7.
  25. Ali A, Orion S, Tesfaye T, Zambriski JA. The prevalence of lameness and associated risk factors in cart mules in Bahir Dar, Ethiopia. Trop Anim Health Prod 2016;48:1483-9.
  26. McLean A, Varnum A, Ali A, Heleski C, Navas González FJ. Comparing and contrasting knowledge on mules and hinnies as a tool to comprehend their behavior and improve their welfare. Animals 2019;9:488.
  27. Ali ABA, 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 Clin Appl Res 2015;10:158-65.
  28. 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;21:93-100.
  29. Pritchard JC. Animal traction and transport in the 21st century: getting the priorities right. Vet J 2010;186:271-4.

Citations

This article has been cited 25 times.
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join 99,359 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.