FREE SHIPPING over $40
OVER 9000 FIVE-STAR REVIEWS
5% OFF ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS
100% HAPPINESS GUARANTEE
Analyze Diet
0
Home / Equine Research Bank / PLoS One / Evaluation of changes in equine care and limb-related abnorm...
PloS one2015; 10(5); e0126160; doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0126160

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.

Abstract: Previous studies have found the prevalence of lameness in working horses to be 90-100%. Risk factors for lameness in this important equine population, together with risk-reduction strategies adopted by their owners, are poorly understood. The objective was to uncover risk factors for lameness and limb abnormalities in working horses, by associating clinical lameness examination findings on three occasions over two years with owner reported changes in equine management and work practices over this period. Results: Twenty-one communities of horse owners in Jaipur, India, took part in a participatory intervention (PI) project aiming to reduce risk factors for poor welfare, particularly lameness and limb problems. Associations between quantitative measures of equine lameness/limb abnormalities and reported changes in management and work practices were compared with 21 control (C) communities of owners where no intervention had taken place. Key findings from 'complete cases', where the same horse stayed with the same owner for the whole study period (PI group = 73 owners of 83 horses, C group = 58 owners of 66 horses), were that more positive statements of change in equine management and work practices were made by PI group owners than C group owners. A mixed picture of potential risk factors emerged: some reported management improvements, for example reducing the weight of the load for cart animals, were associated with improved limbs and lameness, and others, such as making improvements in shoeing and increasing the age at which their animals started work, with negative outcomes. Conclusions: This study illustrates the complexity and interacting nature of risk factors for lameness in working horses, and highlights the importance of longitudinal investigations that recognise and address this. PI group owners found the project useful and requested similar inputs in future. Our findings demonstrate the value of exploratory and participatory research methodology in the field of working horse welfare.
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2015-05-22 PubMed ID: 26000967PubMed Central: PMC4441452DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0126160Google 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 study examines the factors influencing lameness or limb abnormalities in working horses in Jaipur, India, during a two-year participatory intervention project specifically designed to enhance horse welfare and reduce lameness risk factors. It discovered both positive and negative outcomes related to certain management practices.

Research Context and Goal

  • The research was set in Jaipur, India, with 21 communities of horse owners participating in a participatory intervention (PI) project that aimed to decrease risk factors causing poor horse welfare, primarily focusing on lameness and limb problems.
  • The study’s intention was to identify risk factors leading to lameness and limb abnormalities in working horses and to associate these factors with the changes and improvements the horse owners made in management and work practices over a two-year period.

Methodology and Data Collection

  • The research team collected data on the horse’s health status, particularly in relation to lameness/limb abnormalities, and the adjustments made in management and work practices, across three distinct periods over two years.
  • These findings from the PI project were then compared with data from 21 control communities where no such interventions had taken place.
  • The most reliable findings came from ‘complete cases’ where the same horse stayed with the same owner throughout the study period.

Key Findings

  • Owners who participated in the PI project reported more positive changes in equine management and work practices than the owners who were part of the control group.
  • Reduction of load weight for cart animals was reported to have a positive impact on the health of the equine’s limbs and on the prevalence of lameness.
  • However, certain measures such as improvements in shoeing and raising the working age of the animals were linked to negative outcomes, demonstrating the interplay of various risk factors.

Conclusion and Further Implications

  • The study underscores the complexity of risk factors that contribute to lameness in working horses, emphasizing the necessity for longitudinal research to fully understand and address these issues.
  • The owners who were part of the PI project found the initiative helpful and expressed interest in further similar initiatives.
  • Overall, the research affirms the potential of participatory research methodology in improving the welfare of working horses.

Cite This Article

APA
Whay HR, Dikshit AK, Hockenhull J, Parker RM, Banerjee A, Hughes SI, Pritchard JC, Reix CE. (2015). 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, 10(5), e0126160. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0126160

Publication

PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
NlmUniqueID: 101285081
Country: United States
Language: English
Volume: 10
Issue: 5
Pages: e0126160
PII: e0126160

Researcher Affiliations

Whay, Helen R
  • School of Veterinary Sciences, University of Bristol, Langford House, North Somerset, United Kingdom.
Dikshit, Amit K
  • Help in Suffering, Maharani Farm, Durgapura, Jaipur, India.
Hockenhull, Jo
  • School of Veterinary Sciences, University of Bristol, Langford House, North Somerset, United Kingdom.
Parker, Richard M A
  • School of Veterinary Sciences, University of Bristol, Langford House, North Somerset, United Kingdom.
Banerjee, Anindo
  • Praxis Institute for Participatory Practices, C-75, South Extension, Part II, New Delhi, India.
Hughes, Sue I
  • School of Veterinary Sciences, University of Bristol, Langford House, North Somerset, United Kingdom.
Pritchard, Joy C
  • Animals in International Development, Banwell, North Somerset, United Kingdom; The Brooke, Friars Bridge Court, London, United Kingdom.
Reix, Christine E
  • School of Veterinary Sciences, University of Bristol, Langford House, North Somerset, United Kingdom; The Brooke, Friars Bridge Court, London, United Kingdom.

MeSH Terms

  • Animal Husbandry / methods
  • Animals
  • Female
  • Gait
  • Horse Diseases / epidemiology
  • Horses
  • India
  • Lameness, Animal / epidemiology
  • Male
  • Prevalence
  • Risk Factors
  • Risk Reduction Behavior

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

References

This article includes 28 references
  1. FAOSTAT Food and Agricultural Organisation Statistical Database, Live Animals. 2010. Available: http://faostat.fao.org/site/573/DesktopDefault.aspx?PageID=573#ancor. Accessed: 2011 Apr 8.
  2. 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.
    pubmed: 15907574doi: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2005.02.002google scholar: lookup
  3. 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
  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 Dec;186(3):385-92.
    doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2009.09.016pubmed: 19926316google scholar: lookup
  5. Whay HR. The journey to animal welfare improvement. Animal Welfare 2007;16(2):117–122.
  6. Murray RC, Walters JM, Snart H, Dyson SJ, Parkin TD. Identification of risk factors for lameness in dressage horses.. Vet J 2010 Apr;184(1):27-36.
    doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2009.03.020pubmed: 19369100google scholar: lookup
  7. Williams RB, Harkins LS, Hammond CJ, Wood JL. Racehorse injuries, clinical problems and fatalities recorded on British racecourses from flat racing and National Hunt racing during 1996, 1997 and 1998.. Equine Vet J 2001 Sep;33(5):478-86.
    pubmed: 11558743doi: 10.2746/042516401776254808google scholar: lookup
  8. Nagy A, Murray JK, Dyson S. Elimination from elite endurance rides in nine countries: a preliminary study.. Equine Vet J Suppl 2010 Nov;(38):637-43.
    doi: 10.1111/j.2042-3306.2010.00220.xpubmed: 21059073google scholar: lookup
  9. Morgan R. The epidemiology of lameness in working donkeys in Addis Ababa and the central Oromia region of Ethiopia: a comparative study of urban and rural donkey populations. Proceedings of the 5th International Colloquium on Working Equids Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 30th October— 2nd November 2006, pp99–106.
  10. Conroy C. Participatory livestock research: a guide. Rugby: ITDG Publishing; 2005. pp 58–59.
  11. Litva A, Robinson CS, Archer DC. Exploring lay perceptions of the causes of crib-biting/windsucking behaviour in horses.. Equine Vet J 2010 May;42(4):288-93.
    doi: 10.1111/j.2042-3306.2009.00025.xpubmed: 20525045google scholar: lookup
  12. Christley RM, Perkins E. Researching hard to reach areas of knowledge: qualitative research in veterinary science.. Equine Vet J 2010 May;42(4):285-6.
    doi: 10.1111/j.2042-3306.2010.00074.xpubmed: 20525043google scholar: lookup
  13. 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
  14. Marsland N, Wilson I, Abeyasekera S, Kleih U. Combining quantitative (formal) and qualitative (informal) survey methods. Socioeconomic Methodologies for Natural Resources Research Best Practice Guidelines Chatham: Natural Resources Institute; 2001.
  15. Reix CE, Dikshit AK, Hockenhull J, Parker RM, Banerjee A, Burn CC, Pritchard JC, Whay HR. A two-year participatory intervention project with owners to reduce lameness and limb abnormalities in working horses in Jaipur, India.. PLoS One 2015;10(4):e0124342.
    pmc: PMC4405470pubmed: 25898014doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0124342google scholar: lookup
  16. Kumar S. Methods for community participation: a complete guide for practitioners. Rugby: Intermediate Technology Publications Limited; 2002.
  17. Broster CE, Burn CC, Barr ARS, Whay HR. Prioritising indicators of lameness and related pain in working equids to be included in a practical field lameness assessment tool. Proceedings of the 6th International Colloquium on Working Equids New Delhi, India, 29th November— 2nd December 2010, pp 9–11.
  18. Bazeley P. Qualitative Data Analysis with NVivo. London: Sage Publications; 2007.
  19. Rasbash J, Steele F, Browne WJ, Goldstein H. A User’s Guide to MLwiN, v2.10. University of Bristol: Centre for Multilevel Modelling; 2009.
  20. Rasbash J, Browne WJ, Healy M, Cameron B, Charlton C. MLwiN Version 2.22. University of Bristol: Centre for Multilevel Modelling; 2010.
  21. Babbie ER. The practice of social research. California: Thomson Wadworth; 2007. pp 44–54.
  22. Britten N. Qualitative research on health communication: what can it contribute?. Patient Educ Couns 2011 Mar;82(3):384-8.
    doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2010.12.021pubmed: 21242048google scholar: lookup
  23. Forman J, Creswell JW, Damschroder L, Kowalski CP, Krein SL. Qualitative research methods: key features and insights gained from use in infection prevention research.. Am J Infect Control 2008 Dec;36(10):764-71.
    doi: 10.1016/j.ajic.2008.03.010pubmed: 18834752google scholar: lookup
  24. Rogers CW, Firth EC, McIlwraith CW, Barneveld A, Goodship AE, Kawcak CE, Smith RK, van Weeren PR. Evaluation of a new strategy to modulate skeletal development in racehorses by imposing track-based exercise during growth: the effects on 2- and 3-year-old racing careers.. Equine Vet J 2008 Mar;40(2):119-27.
    pubmed: 18093893doi: 10.2746/042516408x266088google scholar: lookup
  25. Frankel S, Davison C, Smith GD. Lay epidemiology and the rationality of responses to health education.. Br J Gen Pract 1991 Oct;41(351):428-30.
    pmc: PMC1371828pubmed: 1777300
  26. Whay HR. The ethics of conducting animal welfare research in poor communities. The 6th International Colloquium on working Equids New Delhi, India, 29th November— 2nd December 2010, pp 67–69.
  27. Jones H. Taking responsibility for complexity: how implementation can achieve results in the face of complex problems Working Paper 330. London: Overseas Development Institute; 2011.
  28. Wuest J. Are we there yet? Positioning qualitative research differently.. Qual Health Res 2011 Jul;21(7):875-83.
    doi: 10.1177/1049732311401424pubmed: 21368018google scholar: lookup

Citations

This article has been cited 5 times.
  1. Haddy E, Brown J, Burden F, Raw Z, Kaminski J, Proops L. "What can we do to actually reach all these animals?" Evaluating approaches to improving working equid welfare.. PLoS One 2022;17(9):e0273972.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0273972pubmed: 36084063google scholar: lookup
  2. Haddy E, Burden F, Fernando-Martínez JA, Legaria-Ramírez D, Raw Z, Brown J, Kaminski J, Proops L. Evaluation of long-term welfare initiatives on working equid welfare and social transmission of knowledge in Mexico.. PLoS One 2021;16(5):e0251002.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0251002pubmed: 33945552google scholar: lookup
  3. Haddy E, Rodrigues JB, Raw Z, Burden F, Proops L. Documenting the Welfare and Role of Working Equids in Rural Communities of Portugal and Spain.. Animals (Basel) 2020 May 2;10(5).
    doi: 10.3390/ani10050790pubmed: 32370244google scholar: lookup
  4. Mohite DS, Sheikh CS, Singh S, Kalita J, Williams S, Compston PC. Using Qualitative Methods to Explore Farrier-Related Barriers to Successful Farriery Interventions for Equine Welfare in India.. Animals (Basel) 2019 May 18;9(5).
    doi: 10.3390/ani9050252pubmed: 31109080google scholar: lookup
  5. 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 2018;13(2):e0192354.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0192354pubmed: 29466391google scholar: lookup
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join 99,344 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.