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) / Perceptions and Attitudes towards Mules in a Group of Soldie...
Animals : an open access journal from MDPI2021; 11(4); 1009; doi: 10.3390/ani11041009

Perceptions and Attitudes towards Mules in a Group of Soldiers.

Abstract: Mules are essential for pack work in mountainous areas, but there is a lack of research on this species. This study intends to assess the perceptions, attitudes, empathy and pain perception of soldiers about mules, to understand the type of human-mule relationship. For this, a survey was applied with closed-ended questions where the empathy and pain perception tools were included and later analyzed through correlations. Open-ended questions were analyzed through text mining. A total of 73 soldiers were surveyed. They had a wide range of ages and years of experience working with equids. Significant positive correlations were found between human empathy, animal empathy and pain perception. Soldiers show a preference for working with mules over donkeys and horses. Text mining analysis shows three clusters associated with the mules' nutritional, environmental and health needs. In the same line, relevant relations were found for the word "attention" with "load", "food", and "harness". When asked what mules signify for them, two clusters were found, associated with mules' working capacity and their role in the army. Relevant relations were found between the terms "mountain", "support", and "logistics", and also between "intelligent" and "noble". To secure mules' behavioral and emotional needs, future training strategies should include behavior and welfare concepts.
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2021-04-03 PubMed ID: 33916720PubMed Central: PMC8067085DOI: 10.3390/ani11041009Google 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 aimed at understanding the perceptions, attitudes, empathy, and pain perception of soldiers towards mules, a crucial animal in their pack work especially in mountainous areas.

Objective and Methodology

  • The main goal of this study was to understand the human-mule relationship by assessing the attitudes, perceptions, empathy, and pain perception of soldiers about mules. This was intended to fill the gap in research about mules, despite their vital role in pack work in mountainous terrains.
  • The researchers used a survey with both closed-ended and open-ended questions. The closed-ended questions included tools for measuring empathy and pain perception.
  • The study surveyed 73 soldiers of varying ages and with different lengths of experience working with equids, including mules, donkeys, and horses.
  • Data analysis involved correlations for the closed-ended questions and text mining for the open-ended questions.

Findings

  • The researchers found significant positive correlations between human empathy, animal empathy, and pain perception. This indicates that the soldiers’ empathy levels towards humans and animals and their ability to perceive pain are closely related.
  • Preference for working with mules over donkeys and horses was also identified among the surveyed soldiers.
  • Text mining analysis revealed three clusters related to mules’ nutritional, environmental, and health needs.
  • The analysis also pointed to “attention” being a crucial element linked with “load”, “food”, and “harness”. This suggests the soldiers’ awareness of the importance of attentive care to mules concerning their workload, diet, and harnessing.

Significance and Implications

  • The findings imply that mules are associated with work capacity and their role in the army, terms “mountain”, “support”, “logistics”, “intelligent”, and “noble” were found to be relevantly related.
  • The study acknowledges the significance of mules in military operations and their working capacity, especially in challenging terrains.
  • To ensure the behavioral and emotional needs of mules are met, the study suggests that future training strategies should incorporate behavior and welfare concepts. This is in recognition of the important role mules play and the need for their adequate care and handling.

Cite This Article

APA
Lagos J, Rojas M, Rodrigues JB, Tadich T. (2021). Perceptions and Attitudes towards Mules in a Group of Soldiers. Animals (Basel), 11(4), 1009. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11041009

Publication

Animals : an open access journal from MDPI
ISSN: 2076-2615
NlmUniqueID: 101635614
Country: Switzerland
Language: English
Volume: 11
Issue: 4
PII: 1009

Researcher Affiliations

Lagos, Javiera
  • Programa Doctorado en Ciencias Silvoagropecuarias y Veterinarias, Universidad de Chile, Santiago 8820808, Chile.
Rojas, Manuel
  • Departamento Ingeniería Industrial, Facultad Ciencias Físicas y Matemáticas, Universidad de Chile, Santiago 8320198, Chile.
Rodrigues, Joao B
  • Research and Operational Support Department, The Donkey Sanctuary, Sidmouth, Devon EX10 0NU, UK.
Tadich, Tamara
  • Instituto de Ciencia Animal, Facultad de Ciencias Veterinarias, Universidad Austral de Chile, Valdivia 5090000, Chile.

Grant Funding

  • 1191068 / Fondo Nacional de Desarrollo Cientu00edfico y Tecnolu00f3gico

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

This article includes 56 references
  1. Cunningham PF. Topics awaiting study: Investigable questions on animal issues.. Soc. Anim. 1995;3:89–106.
    doi: 10.1163/156853095X00071google scholar: lookup
  2. FAO FAOSTAT. [(accessed on 1 February 2021)];2019 Available online: http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QA.
  3. McKenna C. Bearing a Heavy Burden.. The Brooke; London, UK: 2007.
  4. Pritchard J. What role do working equids play in human livelihoods, and how well is this currently recognised?. Proceedings of the 7th International Colloquium on Working Equids, Royal Holloway; University of London, London, UK. 1–3 July 2014.
  5. Lanas R, Luna D, Tadich T. The relationship between working horse welfare and their owners’ socio-economic status.. Anim. Welf. 2018;18:27–54.
    doi: 10.7120/09627286.27.1.047google scholar: lookup
  6. The Brooke. Trabajadores Invisibles. Los Aportes Económicos de los Caballos de Trabajo, Mulas y Burros en los Medios de Subsistencia.. The Brooke; London, UK: 2015.
  7. Tadich TA, Stuardo Escobar LH. Strategies for improving the welfare of working equids in the Americas: a Chilean example.. Rev Sci Tech 2014 Apr;33(1):203-11.
    doi: 10.20506/rst.33.1.2271pubmed: 25000793google scholar: lookup
  8. Ali ABA, Matoock MY, Fouad MA, Heleski CR. Are mules or donkeys better adapted for Egyptian brick kiln work? (Until we change the kilns). J. Vet. Behav. 2015;10:158–165.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jveb.2014.12.003google scholar: lookup
  9. Rodrigues JB, Sullivan RJE, Judge A, Norris SL, Burden FA. Quantifying poor working equid welfare in Nepalese brick kilns using a welfare assessment tool.. Vet Rec 2020 Nov 28;187(11):445.
    doi: 10.1136/vr.106135pubmed: 33115919google scholar: lookup
  10. Stringer AP, Bell CE, Christley RM, Gebreab F, Tefera G, Reed K, Trawford A, Pinchbeck GL. A cluster-randomised controlled trial to compare the effectiveness of different knowledge-transfer interventions for rural working equid users in Ethiopia.. Prev Vet Med 2011 Jun 15;100(2):90-9.
    doi: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2011.02.001pmc: PMC3149660pubmed: 21420748google scholar: lookup
  11. Degefa G, Negash T, Bishop S. Measuring impact on equine welfare from the animal and owner perspective. Proceedings of the 6th International Colloquium on Working Equids: Learning from Others, An International Colloquium, India Habitat Centre; New Delhi, India. 29 November–2 December 2010; London, UK: The Brooke; 2010. pp. 14–17.
  12. Lawrence EA. Animals in war: History and implications for the future.. Anthrozoos. 1991;4:145–153.
    doi: 10.2752/089279391787057189google scholar: lookup
  13. Nóbrega RR, Duarte Barboza RR. What about the unusual soldiers? Animals used in war. Ethnozooloy. Academic Press; Cambridge, MA, USA: 2018; pp. 323–337.
    doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-809913-1.00017-Xgoogle scholar: lookup
  14. Gorzoni P. Animais nas Guerras: A Força do Exército dos Bichos nas Grandes Batalhas.. Matrix Editora; Sao Paulo, Brasil: 2010.
  15. Sasimowski E. Management and utilization of equine animals for work.. Animal Energy in Agriculture in Africa and Asia. FAO; Rome, Italy: 1984. (FAO Series, Publication No. 42).
  16. Hameed A, Tariq M, Yasin MA. Assessment of welfare of working donkeys and mules using health and behavior parameters.. J. Agric. Sci. Food Technol. 2016;2:69–74.
  17. 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 Jan-Mar;21(1):93-100.
    doi: 10.1080/10888705.2017.1351365pubmed: 28762781google scholar: lookup
  18. Ali ABA, El Sayed MA, 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. 2019;29:95–101.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jveb.2018.05.008google scholar: lookup
  19. Hemsworth PH. Human-animal interactions in livestock production.. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2003;81:185–198.
    doi: 10.1016/S0168-1591(02)00280-0google scholar: lookup
  20. Kielland C, Skjerve E, Osterås O, Zanella AJ. Dairy farmer attitudes and empathy toward animals are associated with animal welfare indicators.. J Dairy Sci 2010 Jul;93(7):2998-3006.
    doi: 10.3168/jds.2009-2899pubmed: 20630216google scholar: lookup
  21. Luna D, Vásquez RA, Yáñez JM, Tadich T. The relationship between working horse welfare state and their owners’ empathy level and perception of equine pain.. Anim. Welf. 2018;27:115–123.
    doi: 10.7120/09627286.27.2.115google scholar: lookup
  22. de Waal FB. Putting the altruism back into altruism: the evolution of empathy.. Annu Rev Psychol 2008;59:279-300.
    doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093625pubmed: 17550343google scholar: lookup
  23. Upjohn MM, Pfeiffer DU, Verheyen KL. Helping working Equidae and their owners in developing countries: monitoring and evaluation of evidence-based interventions.. Vet J 2014 Feb;199(2):210-6.
    doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2013.09.065pubmed: 24269105google scholar: lookup
  24. Landauer TK, Foltz PW, Laham D. An introduction to latent semantic analysis.. Discourse Process. 1998;25:259–284.
    doi: 10.1080/01638539809545028google scholar: lookup
  25. Evangelopoulos N, Zhang X, Prybutok VR. Latent semantic analysis: Five methodological recommendations.. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 2012;21:70–86.
    doi: 10.1057/ejis.2010.61google scholar: lookup
  26. Luna D, Vásquez RA, Rojas M, Tadich TA. Welfare Status of Working Horses and Owners' Perceptions of Their Animals.. Animals (Basel) 2017 Aug 1;7(8).
    doi: 10.3390/ani7080056pmc: PMC5575568pubmed: 28788109google scholar: lookup
  27. Rault JL, Waiblinger S, Boivin X, Hemsworth P. The Power of a Positive Human-Animal Relationship for Animal Welfare.. Front Vet Sci 2020;7:590867.
    doi: 10.3389/fvets.2020.590867pmc: PMC7680732pubmed: 33240961google scholar: lookup
  28. Paul ES. Empathy with animals and with humans: Are they linked?. Anthrozoös. 2000;13:194–202.
    doi: 10.2752/089279300786999699google scholar: lookup
  29. Davis MH. Multidimensional approach to individual differences in empathy.. Cat. Sel. Doc. Psychol. 1980;10:85–104.
  30. Ingoglia S, Lo Coco A, Albiero P. Development of a Brief Form of the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (B-IRI).. J Pers Assess 2016 Sep-Oct;98(5):461-71.
    doi: 10.1080/00223891.2016.1149858pubmed: 27050826google scholar: lookup
  31. Spreng RN, McKinnon MC, Mar RA, Levine B. The Toronto Empathy Questionnaire: scale development and initial validation of a factor-analytic solution to multiple empathy measures.. J Pers Assess 2009 Jan;91(1):62-71.
    doi: 10.1080/00223890802484381pmc: PMC2775495pubmed: 19085285google scholar: lookup
  32. Fernández AM, Dufey M, Kramp U. Testing the psychometric properties of the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI) in Chile: Empathy in a different cultural context.. Eur. J. Psychol. Assess. 2011;27:179–185.
    doi: 10.1027/1015-5759/a000065google scholar: lookup
  33. Luna D, Yañez JM, Tadich T. Level of agreement in the recognition of pain among equine practitioners in Chile.. Vet. México OA. 2016;3:1–8.
  34. Cohen L, Holliday M. Practical Statistics for Students: An Introductory Text.. Paul Chapman Publishing; London, UK: 1996.
    doi: 10.4135/9781849209571google scholar: lookup
  35. Kamada T, Kawai S. An algorithm for drawing general undirected graphs.. Inf. Process. Lett. 1989;31:7–15.
    doi: 10.1016/0020-0190(89)90102-6google scholar: lookup
  36. Calinski T, Harabasz J. A dendrite method for cluster analysis.. Commun. Stat. Theory Methods. 1974;3:1–2.
    doi: 10.1080/03610927408827101google scholar: lookup
  37. Lenci A, Benotto G. Identifying hypernyms in distributional semantic spaces. Proceedings of the First Joint Conference on Lexical and Comptational Semantics; Montreal, QC, Canada. 7–8 June 2012; pp. 75–79.
  38. 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 (Basel) 2019 Jul 26;9(8).
    doi: 10.3390/ani9080488pmc: PMC6719969pubmed: 31357421google scholar: lookup
  39. Luna D, Tadich TA. Why Should Human-Animal Interactions Be Included in Research of Working Equids' Welfare?. Animals (Basel) 2019 Jan 30;9(2).
    doi: 10.3390/ani9020042pmc: PMC6406816pubmed: 30704022google scholar: lookup
  40. McLean AK, Navas González FJ, Canisso IF. Donkey and Mule Behavior.. Vet Clin North Am Equine Pract 2019 Dec;35(3):575-588.
    doi: 10.1016/j.cveq.2019.08.010pubmed: 31672203google scholar: lookup
  41. Bassett L, Buchanan-Smith M. Effects of predictability on the welfare of captive animals.. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2007;102:223–245.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2006.05.029google scholar: lookup
  42. Reneerkens J, Piersma T, Ramenofsky MR. An experimental test of the relationship between temporal variability of feeding opportunities and baseline levels of corticosterone in a shorebird.. J Exp Zool 2002 Jun 15;293(1):81-8.
    doi: 10.1002/jez.10113pubmed: 12115922google scholar: lookup
  43. Bateson P. Assessment of pain in animals.. Anim. Behav. 1991;42:827–839.
    doi: 10.1016/S0003-3472(05)80127-7google scholar: lookup
  44. Ellingen K, Zanella AJ, Bjerkas E, Indrebo A. The relationship between empathy, perception of pain and attitudes towards pets among Norwegian dog owners.. Anthrozoos. 2010;23:231–243.
    doi: 10.2752/175303710X12750451258931google scholar: lookup
  45. Hemsworth PH, Coleman GJ. Human-Livestock Interactions: The Stockperson and the Productivity and Welfare of Intensively-Farmed Animals.. CAB International; Oxon, UK: 1998.
  46. Thomsen PT, Anneberg I, Herskin MS. Differences in attitudes of farmers and veterinarians towards pain in dairy cows.. Vet J 2012 Oct;194(1):94-7.
    doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2012.02.025pubmed: 22516921google scholar: lookup
  47. Calderón-Amor J, Luna-Fernández D, Tadich T. Study of the Levels of Human-Human and Human-Animal Empathy in Veterinary Medical Students from Chile.. J Vet Med Educ 2017 Spring;44(1):179-186.
    doi: 10.3138/jvme.0216-038Rpubmed: 28206834google scholar: lookup
  48. Hazel SJ, Signal TD, Taylor N. Can teaching veterinary and animal-science students about animal welfare affect their attitude toward animals and human-related empathy?. J Vet Med Educ 2011 Spring;38(1):74-83.
    doi: 10.3138/jvme.38.1.74pubmed: 21805938google scholar: lookup
  49. Varnava A. The vagaries and value of the army transport mule in the British army during the First World War.. Hist. Res. 2017;90:248.
    doi: 10.1111/1468-2281.12159google scholar: lookup
  50. Webb T, Pearson C, Summerfield P, Riley M. More than human emotional communities: British soldiers and mules in second world war Burma.. Cult. Soc. Hist. 2020;17:245–262.
    doi: 10.1080/14780038.2020.1744879google scholar: lookup
  51. Schuerch I. Of horses and men, mules and labourers. Human animal semantics, practices and cultures in the early modern Caribbean.. Iberoamericana. 2020;73:13–35.
    doi: 10.18441/ibam.20.2020.73.13-35google scholar: lookup
  52. Mellor DJ, Reid CSW. Concepts of animal well-being and predicting the impact of procedures on experimental animals.. In: Baker RM, Jenkin G, Mellor DJ, editors. Improving the Well-Being of Animals in the Research Environment. Australian and New Zealand Council for the Care of Animals in Research and Teaching; Glen Osmond, Australia: 1994. pp. 3–18.
  53. Mellor DJ, Beausoleil NJ, Littlewood KE, McLean AN, McGreevy PD, Jones B, Wilkins C. The 2020 Five Domains Model: Including Human-Animal Interactions in Assessments of Animal Welfare.. Animals (Basel) 2020 Oct 14;10(10).
    doi: 10.3390/ani10101870pmc: PMC7602120pubmed: 33066335google scholar: lookup
  54. Pinsky TC, Puja IK, Aleri J, Hood J, Sasadara MM, Collins T. A Pilot Welfare Assessment of Working Ponies on Gili Trawangan, Indonesia.. Animals (Basel) 2019 Jul 9;9(7).
    doi: 10.3390/ani9070433pmc: PMC6680438pubmed: 31323983google scholar: lookup
  55. Coleman G. Personnel management in agricultural systems.. In: Benson GJ, Rollin BE, editors. The Well-Being of Farm Animals. Blackwell Publishing; Ames IA, USA: 2004. pp. 167–181.
  56. 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.. Front Vet Sci 2020;7:60.
    doi: 10.3389/fvets.2020.00060pmc: PMC7033506pubmed: 32118074google scholar: lookup

Citations

This article has been cited 4 times.
  1. Bukhari SSUH, Parkes RSV. Assessing the impact of draught load pulling on welfare in equids.. Front Vet Sci 2023;10:1214015.
    doi: 10.3389/fvets.2023.1214015pubmed: 37662986google scholar: lookup
  2. Romero MH, Meneses F, Sanchez JA. Welfare assessment of horses and mules used in recreational and muleteer work in the Colombian coffee region.. Front Vet Sci 2022;9:1031192.
    doi: 10.3389/fvets.2022.1031192pubmed: 36467651google scholar: lookup
  3. Watson T, Kubasiewicz LM, Nye C, Thapa S, Norris SL, Chamberlain N, Burden FA. "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 (Basel) 2022 Nov 15;12(22).
    doi: 10.3390/ani12223152pubmed: 36428381google scholar: lookup
  4. Bukhari SSUH, Rosanowski SM, McElligott AG, Parkes RSV. Welfare Concerns for Mounted Load Carrying by Working Donkeys in Pakistan.. Front Vet Sci 2022;9:886020.
    doi: 10.3389/fvets.2022.886020pubmed: 35692297google scholar: lookup
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join 99,359 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.