FREE SHIPPING over $40
OVER 9000 FIVE-STAR REVIEWS
5% OFF ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS
100% HAPPINESS GUARANTEE
Analyze Diet
0
Home / Equine Research Bank / BMC Vet Res / Putting the cart before the horse: mixed-methods participato...
BMC veterinary research2024; 20(1); 113; doi: 10.1186/s12917-024-03967-3

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.

Abstract: Millions of working equids provide socio-economic support for many low-income communities worldwide. With the prevalence of harness-related wounds reported as higher than 60%, this study aims to describe the equipment used by working equids in three locations of the Ethiopian national regional state of Oromia (Fiche, Bishoftu and Shashamene), and the attitudes and practices of equid owners, users and harness makers regarding work equipment. This mixed-methods study consists of cross-sectional surveying of working equids used for taxi or transport of goods or water, as well as cart-driver questionnaires and focus groups (FG) with working equid stakeholders. Activities conducted with FG included participatory ranking of equipment attributes and equipment drawing exercises. Indicators of equipment design and assembly, as well as cart-driver attitudes and practices were described quantitatively. Associations between equipment characteristics and species, work-type and cart-driver indicators were investigated through univariable logistic regression models, whereas focus group discussions were transcribed and analysed thematically. Results: In total, 368 working equid surveys and cart-driver questionnaires were completed and 87 participants took part in nine FG. Equipment composition and characteristics differed considerably from ideal animal draught and harnessing principles described in the literature, with none of the observed harnesses adhering to all principles and thus not considered fully adequate. Various harness compositions were used, with only saddles and breast collars present in all. Donkey equipment had fewer components than that of horses, such as swingle trees (OR 0.02; 95% CI 0.01-0.06; p < 0.001) or girths (OR 0.09; 95%CI 0.02-0.4; p = 0.002). Horse equipment was more likely to have functional elements such as breeching (OR 7.8; 95% CI 2.9-20.9; p < 0.001). Of all equipment attributes, FG participants ranked cost, design and impact on animal wellbeing as having the highest importance. Thematic analysis identified motivations and priorities regarding equipment; awareness and knowledge of design and function; barriers to using ideal equipment; and consequences of equipment design and practices as key themes. Conclusions: Various weaknesses of design, assembly and use of equid work equipment were identified. Promoting behavioural change through awareness and training could lead to a sustainable improvement of work equipment quality, access, and prevention of equipment-related problems.
© 2024. The Author(s).
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2024-03-22 PubMed ID: 38519893PubMed Central: PMC10958837DOI: 10.1186/s12917-024-03967-3Google 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.

Overview

  • This study investigated the types and quality of harness equipment used on working equids (horses and donkeys) in three towns in Oromia, Ethiopia.
  • It aimed to understand the equipment characteristics, practices, and attitudes of equid owners and users, highlighting the prevalence of harness-related wounds and identifying areas for improvement.

Introduction and Background

  • Working equids such as horses and donkeys play a critical socio-economic role in low-income communities worldwide by providing transport and labor support.
  • Harness-related wounds in working equids are a major welfare concern, with reported prevalence rates over 60%, indicating widespread issues with harness quality and fit.
  • The Ethiopian Oromia region, specifically the towns of Fiche, Bishoftu, and Shashamene, was chosen to examine local harness practices and attitudes towards equipment.

Research Objectives and Methods

  • A mixed-methods approach was used combining:
    • Cross-sectional surveys of working equids engaged in taxi services or transport of goods/water to document equipment composition and condition.
    • Questionnaires administered to cart drivers to gather quantitative data on harness use, maintenance, and perceptions.
    • Focus groups with equid-owning stakeholders to explore attitudes, knowledge, and priorities regarding harness equipment.
  • Participatory techniques in focus groups included ranking equipment attributes and drawing exercises to elicit detailed views on ideal versus actual harness designs.
  • Statistical analyses such as univariable logistic regression explored associations between equipment types and factors like species (horse or donkey), work type, and cart driver characteristics.
  • Thematic analysis was applied to qualitative focus group transcripts to identify key patterns and themes related to harness use and challenges.

Key Findings

  • A total of 368 equid surveys and cart-driver questionnaires were completed alongside 9 focus groups involving 87 participants.
  • Equipment varied widely but none fully met established principles of ideal animal draught and harness design, indicating systemic inadequacies.
  • Common harness components across all animals were saddles and breast collars, but other elements varied notably by species:
    • Donkey harnesses generally had fewer components—much less likely to include swingle trees (odds ratio [OR] 0.02) or girths (OR 0.09)—compared to horses.
    • Horse harnesses were significantly more likely to feature functional elements like breeching (OR 7.8), which aids braking and maneuvering with carts.
  • Focus group participants prioritized three main equipment attributes:
    • Cost – affordability was a key limiting factor for owners and users.
    • Design – functional and ergonomic aspects to suit animal needs.
    • Impact on animal wellbeing – recognition that poor equipment harms the animals physically.
  • Thematic analysis highlighted several critical issues:
    • Motivations behind current harness choices and priorities among users.
    • Limited awareness and knowledge about proper harness design and its functional implications.
    • Practical barriers to adopting ideal equipment, including economic constraints and availability.
    • Consequences of suboptimal harness design, such as wounds and reduced animal welfare.

Conclusions and Implications

  • Significant weaknesses exist in the design, assembly, and use of harness equipment in these Ethiopian towns, affecting equid welfare and efficiency.
  • There is a clear need for behavioral change interventions focused on awareness raising and training for equid owners, users, and harness makers.
  • Such interventions could improve harness quality and availability sustainably, thereby preventing equipment-related injuries and enhancing animal wellbeing.
  • Addressing cost, design education, and animal welfare awareness simultaneously is critical to ensure adoption of better practices.

Overall Significance

  • This study provides valuable mixed-method insights into the real-world challenges of working equid harnessing in a key Ethiopian region.
  • It combines quantitative and qualitative data to paint a comprehensive picture that can inform targeted interventions for improving harnessing practices and animal welfare.
  • Findings emphasize that improving harness quality is not only a technical issue but an interplay of knowledge, economic factors, design preferences, and cultural practices.

Cite This Article

APA
Merridale-Punter MS, Elias B, Wodajo AL, El-Hage CM, Zewdu H, Tesfaye R, Hailegebreal G, Sori T, Wiethoelter AK, Hitchens PL. (2024). 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 Vet Res, 20(1), 113. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12917-024-03967-3

Publication

BMC veterinary research
ISSN: 1746-6148
NlmUniqueID: 101249759
Country: England
Language: English
Volume: 20
Issue: 1
Pages: 113
PII: 113

Researcher Affiliations

Merridale-Punter, Mathilde S
  • Melbourne Veterinary School, Faculty of Science, University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, 3010, Australia. mseabramerri@student.unimelb.edu.au.
Elias, Belay
  • College of Veterinary Medicine and Agriculture, Addis Ababa University, P.O. Box 34, Bishoftu, Ethiopia.
  • Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Hawassa University, P.O. Box 05, Hawassa, Ethiopia.
Wodajo, Abel L
  • College of Veterinary Medicine and Agriculture, Addis Ababa University, P.O. Box 34, Bishoftu, Ethiopia.
El-Hage, Charles M
  • Melbourne Veterinary School, Faculty of Science, University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, 3010, Australia.
Zewdu, Hanna
  • College of Veterinary Medicine and Agriculture, Addis Ababa University, P.O. Box 34, Bishoftu, Ethiopia.
Tesfaye, Reta
  • College of Veterinary Medicine and Agriculture, Addis Ababa University, P.O. Box 34, Bishoftu, Ethiopia.
Hailegebreal, Gizachew
  • Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Hawassa University, P.O. Box 05, Hawassa, Ethiopia.
Sori, Teshale
  • College of Veterinary Medicine and Agriculture, Addis Ababa University, P.O. Box 34, Bishoftu, Ethiopia.
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.

MeSH Terms

  • Animals
  • Cities
  • Animal Husbandry / methods
  • Ethiopia / epidemiology
  • Cross-Sectional Studies
  • Surveys and Questionnaires

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

References

This article includes 69 references
  1. Allan FK. A landscaping analysis of Working Equid Population numbers in LMICs, with Policy recommendations.. .
  2. CSA. Report on livestock and livestock characteristics (private peasant holdings). Addis Ababa: Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia Central Statistical Agency; 2020.
  3. Haben Fesseha M. Assessment of Socio-economic Importance and Major Constraints of Working Equines in and around Debre Berhan Town, Central Ethiopia.. 2020.
  4. Mekonnen N, Channe D. Management practices of working donkeys in urban and rural areas of Assosa District, Benishangulgumuze region, Ethiopia.. World J Agr Sci 2016;12(5):346–56.
  5. Geiger M, Hockenhull J, Buller H, Tefera Engida G, Getachew M, Burden FA. 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 Veterinary Sci 2020;7:60.
    doi: 10.3389/fvets.2020.00060pmc: PMC7033506pubmed: 32118074google scholar: lookup
  6. 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.
    doi: 10.1007/s11250-016-1121-7pubmed: 27587009google scholar: lookup
  7. Bazezew M, Chanie M, Tesfaye T, Kassa A, Mekonnen B, Wagaw N. Lameness and associated risk factors in Cart mules in Northwestern Ethiopia.. Global Vet 2014;12(6):869–77.
  8. Barwell I, Ayre M. The harnessing of draught animals.. Intermediate Technology Publications London, UK; 1982.
  9. Hovell G. Welfare considerations when attaching animals to vehicles.. Appl Anim Behav Sci 1998;59(1–3):11–7.
    doi: 10.1016/S0168-1591(98)00116-6google scholar: lookup
  10. Connan R. TAWS guidelines for equine draught harness in developing countries.. Draught Anim News 2008;46:57–8.
  11. Garrett C. The good harness guide.. The Donkey Sancuary2017.
  12. Rodrigues JB, Garrett C, Norris SL, Albuquerque F, Queijo L, Cooke F. Collar pressure mapping: an evaluation of seven collar types used on working donkeys in Europe.. Vet Rec 2021;189(8):no–no.
    doi: 10.1002/vetr.772pubmed: 34352122google scholar: lookup
  13. Pearson RA, Simalenga TE, Krecek RC. Harnessing and hitching donkeys, mules and horses for work.. Centre for Tropical Veterinary Medicine, University of Edinburgh; 2003.
  14. Dibbitts H. Harnessing guidelines for single donkey carts.. Improving Donkey Utilisation and Management ATNESA Workshop, Debre Zeit, Ethiopia; 1997.
  15. Davis T. The Four Principles of Animal Draught.. Practical Action2014.
  16. Rodrigues JB et al. The Donkey Academy - Harness and Working Equids (WRKE 102).. .
  17. Margentino MR. Proper Harness Condition and Fit: National Ag Safety Database (NASD);. .
  18. Oudman L. Donkeys for traction and tillage.. Agromisa; 2004.
  19. 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 2020;10(9):1611.
    doi: 10.3390/ani10091611pmc: PMC7552282pubmed: 32917031google scholar: lookup
  20. Rodrigues JB, Sullivan RJ, Judge A, Norris SL, Burden FA. Quantifying poor working equid welfare in Nepalese brick kilns using a welfare assessment tool.. Vet Rec 2020;187(11):445.
    doi: 10.1136/vr.106135pubmed: 33115919google scholar: lookup
  21. 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(3):385–92.
    doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2009.09.016pubmed: 19926316google scholar: lookup
  22. 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.. Ethiop Veterinary J 2020;24(2):1–15.
    doi: 10.4314/evj.v24i2.1google scholar: lookup
  23. Demelash Biffa D. Causes and factors associated with occurrence of external injuries in working equines in Ethiopia.. Int J Appl Res Vet Med 2006;4:1–7.
  24. Genetu H, Yohannes G, Abdela N, Ibrahim N. Prevalence of wounds and associated risk factors in working equines in Jimma town of Oromia region, South-Western Ethiopia.. Acad J Anim Dis 2017;6:23–9.
  25. 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 2015;13(10):1–8.
  26. Fikru A, Tadese A, Gebreegziabher Z. Prevalence of equine wound and associated risk factors in and around Kombolcha town, North Ethiopia.. J Veterinary Sci Technol 2015;6(4).
  27. McLean AK, Heleski CR, Yokoyama MT, Wang W, Doumbia A, Dembele B. Improving working donkey (Equus asinus) welfare and management in Mali, West Africa.. J Veterinary Behav 2012;7(3):123–34.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jveb.2011.10.004google scholar: lookup
  28. Lorenz MAG, Kokkelink D. Datawrapper: Create Charts and Maps [Software].. .
  29. 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 2017;7(17).
  30. Thrusfield M. Veterinary. epidemiology. John Wiley & Sons; 2018.
  31. Stevenson M. Package ‘epiR’. Tools for the analysis of epidemiological data R package version 09–62.. 2015.
  32. 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.0192354pmc: PMC5821349pubmed: 29466391google scholar: lookup
  33. 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.. J Biomed Inform 2009;42(2):377–81.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jbi.2008.08.010pmc: PMC2700030pubmed: 18929686google scholar: lookup
  34. Harris PA, Taylor R, Minor BL, Elliott V, Fernandez M, O’Neal L. The REDCap consortium: building an international community of software platform partners.. J Biomed Inform 2019;95:103208.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jbi.2019.103208pmc: PMC7254481pubmed: 31078660google scholar: lookup
  35. R Core Team. R: a Language and Environment for Statistical Computing.. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2021.
  36. 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. 2009:252 – 73.
  37. Benjamini Y, Hochberg Y. Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing.. J Roy Stat Soc: Ser B (Methodol) 1995;57(1):289–300.
  38. Guest G, Namey E, McKenna K. How many focus groups are enough? Building an evidence base for nonprobability sample sizes.. Field Methods 2017;29(1):3–22.
    doi: 10.1177/1525822X16639015google scholar: lookup
  39. Hennink M, Kaiser BN. Sample sizes for saturation in qualitative research: a systematic review of empirical tests.. Soc Sci Med 2022;292:114523.
    doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.114523pubmed: 34785096google scholar: lookup
  40. Nyumba O, Wilson T, Derrick K, Mukherjee CJ. The use of focus group discussion methodology: insights from two decades of application in conservation.. Methods Ecol Evol 2018;9(1):20–32.
    doi: 10.1111/2041-210X.12860google scholar: lookup
  41. Lumivero. NVivo (Version 14).. 2020.
  42. Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology.. Qualitative Res Psychol 2006;3(2):77–101.
    doi: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oagoogle scholar: lookup
  43. Creswell JW, Clark VLP, Gutmann ML, Hanson WE. ADVANCED MIXED.. Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research 2003:209.
  44. Hanson WE, Creswell JW, Clark VLP, Petska KS, Creswell JD. Mixed methods research designs in counseling psychology.. J Couns Psychol 2005;52(2):224.
    doi: 10.1037/0022-0167.52.2.224google scholar: lookup
  45. Plano Clark VL, Huddleston-Casas CA, Churchill SL, O’Neil Green D, Garrett AL. Mixed methods approaches in family science research.. J Fam Issues 2008;29(11):1543–66.
    doi: 10.1177/0192513X08318251google scholar: lookup
  46. Mekuria S, Mulachew M, Abebe R. Management practices and welfare problems encountered on working equids in Hawassa town, Southern Ethiopia.. J Vet Med Anim Health 2013;5(9):243–50.
  47. Bereket MT, Addis KG. The neglected welfare statue of working donkeys in Ethiopia: the case of Dale district in southern Ethiopia.. J Veterinary Med Anim Health 2019;11(1):6–11.
    doi: 10.5897/JVMAH2018.0717google scholar: lookup
  48. Diarra M, Doumbial A, McLean A. Survey of working conditions and management of donkeys in Niono and Segou.. JOURNAL OF DAIRY SCIENCE 2007.
  49. Bukhari SSUH, Parkes RSV. Assessing the impact of draught load pulling on Welfare in Equids.. Front Veterinary Sci 2023;10:1214015.
    doi: 10.3389/fvets.2023.1214015pmc: PMC10469728pubmed: 37662986google scholar: lookup
  50. Rooney JR, Turner LW. The mechanics of horses pulling loads.. J Equine Veterinary Sci 1985;5(6):355–9.
    doi: 10.1016/S0737-0806(85)80010-1google scholar: lookup
  51. Scantlebury C, Aklilu N, Reed K, Knottenbelt D, Gebreab F, Pinchbeck G. Ocular disease in working horses in Ethiopia: a cross-sectional study. Vet Rec 2013;172(4):99.
    doi: 10.1136/vr.100802pubmed: 23155077google scholar: lookup
  52. Brooke. Welfare Interpretation Manual. 2016.
  53. Fesseha H, Ayele A, Goa E. Assessment on ocular problems of cart donkey in and around Wolaita Sodo, southern Ethiopia. Austin J Veterinary Sci Anim Husb 2020;7:1067.
  54. Dziezyc J, Taylor L, Boggess MM, Scott HM. The effect of ocular blinkers on the horses’ reactions to four different visual and audible stimuli: results of a crossover trial. Vet Ophthalmol 2011;14(5):327–32.
    doi: 10.1111/j.1463-5224.2011.00880.xpubmed: 21929610google scholar: lookup
  55. Haddy E, Burden F, Prado-Ortiz O, Zappi H, Raw Z, Proops L. Comparison of working equid welfare across three regions of Mexico. Equine Vet J 2021;53(4):763–70.
    doi: 10.1111/evj.13349pubmed: 32920907google scholar: lookup
  56. 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 Vet J 2010;42(3):219–26.
    doi: 10.2746/042516409X478532pubmed: 20486978google scholar: lookup
  57. 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) 2004:15.
  58. Geiger M, Hockenhull J, Buller H, Kedir MJ, Engida GT, Getachew M. Comparison of the socio-economic value and welfare of working donkeys in rural and urban Ethiopia. Anim Welf 2021;30(3):269–77.
    doi: 10.7120/09627286.30.3.004google scholar: lookup
  59. Brooke T. Invisible Workers Report. The Brooke, UK; 2015 October 2015.
  60. Asebe G, Gelayenew B, Kumar A. The general status of animal welfare in developing countries: the case of Ethiopia. J Veterinary Sci Techno 2016;7(3).
  61. Lanas R, Luna D, Tadich T. The relationship between working horse welfare and their owners’ socioeconomic status. Anim Welf 2018;27(1):47–54.
    doi: 10.7120/09627286.27.1.047google scholar: lookup
  62. Smith D. Use and management of donkeys by poor societies in peri-urban areas of Ethiopia. Final Technical Report. Centre for Tropical Veterinary Medicine (CTVM), UK 34 pages. 2005.
  63. Smith H. Comparison of fracture incidence, type and the associated pain between working equids in Egypt and horses in a UK based referral hospital. British Veterinary Association 2010.
  64. Negera A, Bakala S, Abebe B. Overview of major cutaneous and subcutaneous skin problems in horses and their associated risk factor in and around Bishoftu town. Int J Veterinary Sci Res 2023;9(3):047–52.
    doi: 10.17352/ijvsr.000136google scholar: lookup
  65. Sturgeon B. Working animals–One Health, One Welfare. One Welfare in Practice. CRC 2021. pp. 279–317.
  66. Adisasmito WB, Almuhairi S, Behravesh CB, Bilivogui P, Bukachi SA, Casas N. One health: a new definition for a sustainable and healthy future. PLoS Pathog 2022;18(6):e1010537.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1010537pmc: PMC9223325pubmed: 35737670google scholar: lookup
  67. Pinillos RG, Appleby MC, Manteca X, Scott-Park F, Smith C, Velarde A. One Welfare–a platform for improving human and animal welfare. Vet Rec 2016;179(16):412–3.
    doi: 10.1136/vr.i5470pubmed: 27770094google scholar: lookup
  68. Valette D. Invisible helpers. Women’s views on the contributions of working donkeys, horses and mules to their lives. 2014.
  69. Vasanthakumar MA, Upjohn MM, Watson TL, Dwyer CM. All my animals are equal, but none can survive without the horse’. The contribution of Working Equids to the livelihoods of women across Six communities in the Chimaltenango Region of Guatemala. Animals 2021;11(6):1509.
    doi: 10.3390/ani11061509pmc: PMC8224632pubmed: 34067461google scholar: lookup

Citations

This article has been cited 4 times.
  1. Cameron A, Freeman SL, Wild I, Burridge J, Burrell K. Scoping Review of the Socioeconomic Value of Working Equids, and the Impact of Educational Interventions Aimed at Improving Their Welfare.. Animals (Basel) 2026 Jan 7;16(2).
    doi: 10.3390/ani16020165pubmed: 41594356google scholar: lookup
  2. Zhu Q, Khan MZ, Peng Y, Wang C. A Comparative Review of Donkey Genetic Resources, Production Traits, and Industrial Utilization: Perspectives from China and Globally.. Animals (Basel) 2025 Nov 21;15(23).
    doi: 10.3390/ani15233372pubmed: 41375431google scholar: lookup
  3. Tariku GD, Biza TD, Tesfaye SK, Kebede SA. Working animal welfare and their multidimensional roles on livelihood improvement in Ethiopia: A systematic review and meta-analysis.. Anim Welf 2025;34:e2.
    doi: 10.1017/awf.2024.68pubmed: 39935774google scholar: lookup
  4. Derbib T, Daru G, Kehali S, Alemu S. The Role of Working Animals and Their Welfare Issues in Ethiopia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.. Vet Med Int 2024;2024:7031990.
    doi: 10.1155/vmi/7031990pubmed: 39741791google scholar: lookup
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join 99,000 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.