FREE SHIPPING over $40
OVER 9000 FIVE-STAR REVIEWS
5% OFF ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS
100% HAPPINESS GUARANTEE
Analyze Diet
0
Home / Equine Research Bank / Anim Welf / Equipment-related wounds and associated risk factors in work...
Animal welfare (South Mimms, England)2024; 33; e42; doi: 10.1017/awf.2024.52

Equipment-related wounds and associated risk factors in working equids of the Oromia national regional state in Ethiopia.

Abstract: Working equids support the livelihoods of millions of low-income households worldwide and face several welfare challenges. Although equipment-related wounds are common, little is known about specific risk factors. This cross-sectional study surveyed equids used for cart-work in three Ethiopian towns. Number, size, severity and location of wounds were recorded for each animal, as well as work equipment characteristics and indicators of equipment fit and assembly. Questionnaires were conducted with each cart-driver focusing on equipment practices and attitudes. Logistic regression models were generated to investigate associations between equipment-related wounds (outcome) and equipment, work, driver and animal-related factors (predictors). In total, 369 equids and cart-drivers were surveyed. The prevalence of equipment-related wounds was 72.6% (268/369) with girth wounds being the predominant wound type in horses (50%; 122/244) while donkeys had predominantly shaft-related wounds (59%; 72/122). Donkeys were two times more likely to have equipment-related wounds than horses. The presence of equipment-related wounds was associated with factors such as previously having wounds, inadequate collar positioning and using purchased equipment compared to partly home-made equipment. Characteristics of specific equipment components were also associated with certain wound types, such as narrow saddle pressure points and saddle wounds. Equipment-related wounds are highly prevalent in working equids, representing a serious welfare concern. Factors relating to equipment design, fit and assembly were associated with the presence of wounds. Importantly, species differences require tailoring of preventive approaches amongst working equids. A better understanding of work equipment should therefore be promoted as part of wound prevention and animal welfare strategies.
© The Author(s) 2024.
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2024-10-31 PubMed ID: 39600354PubMed Central: PMC11589070DOI: 10.1017/awf.2024.52Google 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 article is about a study conducted in Ethiopia assessing the occurrence and risk factors of wounds on working horses and donkeys due to the work equipment they use. The study indicates the prevalence of such injuries, their association with certain types of equipment and the need for improved animal welfare practices.

Objective of the Study

  • The main goal of the research was to study the incidence and risk factors of equipment-related wounds on working equids (horses and donkeys) in Oromia, Ethiopia.
  • The study also aimed to generate a correlation between these wounds and the various elements contributing to them including the work, driver behaviour, animal characteristics, and type of work equipment employed.

Methodology

  • A cross-sectional study was conducted where equids employed for carting duties were surveyed in three towns of Ethiopia.
  • Researchers examined the quantity, size, extent, and location of the wounds on each animal.
  • The study also recorded information regarding the work equipment traits used and the indications of their assembly and fit.
  • Cart drivers were also surveyed through a series of questionnaires to gather information about their equipment practices and attitudes.
  • Total of 369 equids and cart-drivers were surveyed for the study.

Findings

  • The study revealed that 72.6% (268/369) of the working equids had equipment-related wounds.
  • Significantly, girth wounds were the main type of wounds present in horses while donkeys suffered mainly from shaft-related wounds.
  • The risk of having equipment-related wounds was two times higher in donkeys than in horses.
  • Equipment-related injuries were associated with factors like previous wounds, inappropriate collar positioning and the use of purchased equipment as opposed to partly home-made equipment.
  • Certain characteristics of the specific equipment components were also associated with the presence of certain types of wounds.

Conclusions

  • The researchers concluded that equipment-related wounds in working equids were highly prevalent, posing a substantial animal welfare concern.
  • They found a direct correlation between the presence of wounds and factors related to equipment design, fit and assembly.
  • Crucially, the study demonstrated that differences between species require different approaches for prevention.
  • An improved understanding of work equipment needs to be promoted for wound prevention and better animal welfare strategies.

Cite This Article

APA
Merridale-Punter MS, Wodajo AL, Elias B, Bakos AM, Zewdu H, Tesfaye R, Hailegebreal G, Sori T, El-Hage CM, Wiethoelter AK, Hitchens PL. (2024). Equipment-related wounds and associated risk factors in working equids of the Oromia national regional state in Ethiopia. Anim Welf, 33, e42. https://doi.org/10.1017/awf.2024.52

Publication

Animal welfare (South Mimms, England)
ISSN: 2054-1538
NlmUniqueID: 9214272
Country: England
Language: English
Volume: 33
Pages: e42

Researcher Affiliations

Merridale-Punter, Mathilde S
  • Melbourne Veterinary School, Faculty of Science, University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC 3010, Australia.
Wodajo, Abel L
  • College of Veterinary Medicine and Agriculture, Addis Ababa University, PO Box 34, Bishoftu, Ethiopia.
Elias, Belay
  • College of Veterinary Medicine and Agriculture, Addis Ababa University, PO Box 34, Bishoftu, Ethiopia.
  • Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Hawassa University, PO Box 05, Hawassa, Ethiopia.
Bakos, Anna-Marie
  • Melbourne Veterinary School, Faculty of Science, University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC 3010, Australia.
Zewdu, Hanna
  • College of Veterinary Medicine and Agriculture, Addis Ababa University, PO Box 34, Bishoftu, Ethiopia.
Tesfaye, Reta
  • College of Veterinary Medicine and Agriculture, Addis Ababa University, PO Box 34, Bishoftu, Ethiopia.
Hailegebreal, Gizachew
  • Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Hawassa University, PO Box 05, Hawassa, Ethiopia.
Sori, Teshale
  • College of Veterinary Medicine and Agriculture, Addis Ababa University, PO Box 34, Bishoftu, Ethiopia.
El-Hage, Charles M
  • Melbourne Veterinary School, Faculty of Science, University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC 3010, Australia.
Wiethoelter, Anke K
  • Melbourne Veterinary School, Faculty of Science, University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC 3010, Australia.
Hitchens, Peta L
  • Equine Centre, Melbourne Veterinary School, University of Melbourne, 250 Princes Hwy, Werribee, VIC 3030, Australia.

Conflict of Interest Statement

None.

References

This article includes 46 references
  1. Ali A, Orion S, Tesfaye T, Zambriski JA. The prevalence of lameness and associated risk factors in cart mules in Bahir Dar, Ethiopia.. Tropical Animal Health and Production 48: 1483–1489.
    doi: 10.1007/s11250-016-1121-7pubmed: 27587009google scholar: lookup
  2. Aliye S, Nigusie K, Fesseha H, Mathewos M. Study on welfare and health status of working equines in and around shashamene town, Ethiopia.. Emerging Animal Species 3: 100004.
    doi: 10.1016/j.eas.2022.100004google scholar: lookup
  3. Bazezew M, Chanie M, Tesfaye T, Kassa A, Mekonnen B, Wagaw N. Lameness and associated risk factors in Cart Mules in Northwestern Ethiopia.. Global Veterinaria 12(6): 869–877.
    doi: 10.5829/idosi.gv.2014.12.06.84289google scholar: lookup
  4. Bereket MT, Addis KG. The neglected welfare statue of working donkeys in Ethiopia: The case of Dale district in southern Ethiopia.. Journal of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Health 11(1): 6–11.
    doi: 10.5897/JVMAH2018.0717google scholar: lookup
  5. 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 186(3): 385–392.
    doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2009.09.016pubmed: 19926316google scholar: lookup
  6. Burn CC, Pritchard JC, Farajat M, Twaissi AA, Whay HR. Risk factors for strap-related lesions in working donkeys at the World Heritage Site of Petra in Jordan.. The Veterinary Journal 178(2): 263–271.
    doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2007.07.014pubmed: 17869139google scholar: lookup
  7. 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 7(17).
  8. Chanie M, Fentahun T, Mitiku T, Berhan M. Strategies for improvement of draft animal power supply for cultivation in Ethiopia: a review.. European Journal of Biological Sciences 4(3): 96–104.
    doi: 10.5829/idosi.ejbs.2012.4.3.6648google scholar: lookup
  9. . Report on livestock and livestock characteristics (private peasant holdings).. Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia Central Statistical Agency Addis Ababa, Ethiopa. 2020.
  10. Daneil G, Asmare AA. Assesment on the welfare and its influence on the health of cart horses in Combolcha District, Ethiopia.. Folia Vet 57: 183–189.
  11. Davis T. The Four Principles of Animal Draught.. Practical Action 2014.
  12. Demelash Biffa D. Causes and factors associated with occurrence of external injuries in working equines in Ethiopia.. International Journal of Applied Research in Veterinary Medicine 4: 1–7.
  13. Eriso M, Mekuriya M, Abose Y. Prevalence, causes, and risk factors of wounds in working donkeys at Duna Woreda, Hadiya Zone, Ethiopia.. Journal of Cardiology Research Reviews & Reports 184: 2–3.
    doi: 10.47363/JCRRR/2023(4)184google scholar: lookup
  14. Eriso M, Mekuriya M, Abose Y. Wounds in working donkeys: Prevalence, causes, and risk factors at Duna Woreda, Hadiya Zone, Ethiopia.. Studies in Social Science & Humanities 2(7): 35–40.
    doi: 10.56397/SSSH.2023.07.06google scholar: lookup
  15. . FAOSTAT, Production Data, Live Animals.. FAO 2021.
  16. 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 10(9): 1611.
    doi: 10.3390/ani10091611pmc: PMC7552282pubmed: 32917031google scholar: lookup
  17. 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) 15.
  18. Fikru A, Tadese A, Gebreegziabher Z. Prevalence of equine wound and associated risk factors in and around Kombolcha town, North Ethiopia.. Journal of Veterinary Science and Technology 6(4).
    doi: 10.4172/2157-7579.1000234google scholar: lookup
  19. Garrett C. The good harness guide.. The Donkey Sanctuary UK. 2017.
  20. Geiger M, Hockenhull J, Buller H, Tefera Engida G, Getachew M, Burden FA, Whay HR. 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 7: 60.
    doi: 10.3389/fvets.2020.00060pmc: PMC7033506pubmed: 32118074google scholar: lookup
  21. Grace D, Diall O, Saville K, Warboys D, Ward P, Wild I, Perry BD. The global contributions of working equids to sustainable agriculture and livelihoods in Agenda 2030.. EcoHealth 19(3): 342–353.
    doi: 10.1007/s10393-022-01613-8pmc: PMC9434516pubmed: 36048298google scholar: lookup
  22. 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 53(4): 763–770.
    doi: 10.1111/evj.13349pubmed: 32920907google scholar: lookup
  23. Harris PA, Taylor R, Minor BL, Elliott V, Fernandez M, O’Neal L, McLeod L, Delacqua G, Delacqua F, Kirby J. The REDCap consortium: building an international community of software platform partners.. Journal of Biomedical Informatics 95: 103208.
    pmc: PMC7254481pubmed: 31078660
  24. Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde JG. Research electronic data capture (REDCap)—a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support.. Journal of Biomedical Informatics 42(2): 377–381.
    pmc: PMC2700030pubmed: 18929686
  25. 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 pp 252–273.
  26. Kompi PP, Molapo S, Mosebo KA. Prevalence of equine wounds and associated risk factors in different agro-ecological zones of Lesotho.. Journal of Advanced Veterinary Research 13(8): 1664–1667.
  27. Lanas R, Luna D, Tadich T. The relationship between working horse welfare and their owners’ socioeconomic status.. Animal Welfare 27(1): 47–54.
    doi: 10.7120/09627286.27.1.047google scholar: lookup
  28. Merridale-Punter MS, Elias B, Wodajo AL, El-Hage CM, Zewdu H, Tesfaye R, Hailegebreal G, Sori T, Wiethoelter AK, Hitchens PL. Putting the cart before the horse: mixed-methods participatory investigation of working equid harnessing practices in three selected towns of the Oromia national regional state in Ethiopia.. BMC Veterinary Research 20(1): 113.
    doi: 10.1186/s12917-024-03967-3pmc: PMC10958837pubmed: 38519893google scholar: lookup
  29. Molla B, Dembela S, Megersa B, Mekuria W. The welfare, watering, housing, feeding and working management of working donkeys in and around Hawassa City, Southern Ethiopia.. Journal of Veterinary Research and Animal Husbandry 2(1): 106.
  30. Norris SL, Little HA, Ryding J, Raw Z. Global donkey and mule populations: Figures and trends.. PLoS One 16(2): e0247830.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0247830pmc: PMC7906361pubmed: 33630957google scholar: lookup
  31. Oudman L. Donkeys for traction and tillage.. Agromisa Foundation Wageningen, The Netherlands. 2004.
  32. Pearson RA, Simalenga TE, Krecek RC. Harnessing and hitching donkeys, mules and horses for work.. Centre for Tropical Veterinary Medicine, University of Edinburgh UK. 2003.
  33. 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 69(3–4): 265–283.
    doi: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2005.02.002pubmed: 15907574google scholar: lookup
  34. Team R Core. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing.. R Foundation for Statistical Computing Vienna, Austria. 2021.
  35. Robledo-Reyes EE, Hernández-Gil M, Rojas-Hernández S, Camacho-Díaz LM, Cipriano-Salazar M, Villa-Mancera A, Olivares-Pérez J. Management and welfare of working equids in the Guerrero state.. Ecosistemas y Recursos Agropecuarios 7(2).
    doi: 10.19136/era.a7n2.2333google scholar: lookup
  36. Rodrigues JB et al.. The Donkey Academy - Harness and Working Equids (WRKE 102).. The Donkey Sanctuary 2022.
  37. Rodrigues JB, Garrett C, Norris SL, Albuquerque F, Queijo L, Cooke F, Judge A. Collar pressure mapping: An evaluation of seven collar types used on working donkeys in Europe.. Veterinary Record 189(8): e772.
    doi: 10.1002/vetr.772pubmed: 34352122google scholar: lookup
  38. 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 187(11): 445.
    doi: 10.1136/vr.106135pubmed: 33115919google scholar: lookup
  39. 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 46: 555–561.
    doi: 10.1007/s11250-013-0529-6pubmed: 24488621google scholar: lookup
  40. 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 42(3): 219–226.
    doi: 10.2746/042516409X478532pubmed: 20486978google scholar: lookup
  41. 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 13(2): e0192354.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0192354pmc: PMC5821349pubmed: 29466391google scholar: lookup
  42. Stevenson M, Sergeant E. Package ‘epiR’.. CRAN R Project 2015.
  43. Sturgeon B. Working Animals–One Health, One Welfare.. One Welfare in Practice pp 279–317. CRC Press: Boca Raton, Florida, USA. 2021.
  44. 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 24(2): 1–15.
    doi: 10.4314/evj.v24i2.1google scholar: lookup
  45. Textor J, Van der Zander B, Gilthorpe MS, Liśkiewicz M, Ellison GT. Robust causal inference using directed acyclic graphs: the R package ‘dagitty’.. International Journal of Epidemiology 45(6): 1887–1894.
    doi: 10.1093/ije/dyw341pubmed: 28089956google scholar: lookup
  46. 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.. National Science 13(10): 1–8.
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join 99,034 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.