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) / Welfare Status of Working Horses and Owners’ Perceptio...
Animals : an open access journal from MDPI2017; 7(8); 56; doi: 10.3390/ani7080056

Welfare Status of Working Horses and Owners’ Perceptions of Their Animals.

Abstract: Appropriate interventions to improve working equine welfare should be proposed according to scientific evidence that arises from different geo-cultural contexts. This study aims to assess and compare the welfare status of working horses in two administrative regions of Chile and to determine how owners perceive their horses. Horses' welfare status was assessed through direct indicators (direct observation and clinical examination) and indirect indicators (an interview with the owner). Owners' perceptions of their horses were determined through a discourse analysis of their statements. In total, 100 horses and 100 owners were assessed. Results showed a low prevalence of health problems and negative behavior responses among horses in the two regions evaluated. Significant associations were found between inadequate body condition and the absence of deworming, and between hoof abnormalities and a low frequency of shoeing. Between regions, significant differences were found in the presence of lesions and the person responsible for horseshoeing. In regards to the owners' appreciations, two differing perceptions of working horses were found: a predominantly affective perception and a perception of the animal as a working instrument. Although the instrumental perception was more frequent in the Araucania region, the affective perception was widely shared by both owner populations. The results reveal a good welfare status in working horses and suggest that both affective and instrumental perceptions of these animals can coexist.
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2017-08-01 PubMed ID: 28788109PubMed Central: PMC5575568DOI: 10.3390/ani7080056Google 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 assesses and compares the welfare of working horses in two parts of Chile. It also evaluates how their owners perceive these horses, gauging whether they view them more with affection or as mere working instruments.

Objective and Methodology

  • The objective of the study was to analyze the welfare status of working horses and gain insights into the owners’ perception of these animals in two administrative regions of Chile.
  • The assessement of the horses’ welfare was done using both direct and indirect indicators. Direct indicators consisted of observing the horses and conducting a clinical examination, while indirect indicators involved interviewing the horse owners.
  • In order to understand the owners’ perspective, the researchers conducted a discourse analysis of their statements.

Sampling and Results

  • The study included a total of 100 horses and 100 owners.
  • The results indicated a low prevalence of health issues and negative behavior responses amongst the horses in both regions.
  • The research found that there were significant associations between inadequate body condition and lack of deworming and between hoof abnormalities and infrequent shoeing.
  • Significant differences were identified between the two regions in terms of the presence of lesions on the horses and who was responsible for their shoeing.

Owners’ Perceptions

  • The study also discovered two different views among horse owners: one group viewed their horses predominantly with affection, while the other saw them more as working tools.
  • Even though the perception of horses as working instruments was more prevalent in the Araucania region, the view of horses with affection was common amongst owners in both regions.

Overall Findings

  • The research confirmed a satisfactory welfare status of working horses in Chile.
  • The study also suggests that both affectionate and instrumental perceptions of these animals can coexist amongst horse owners.

Cite This Article

APA
Luna D, Vásquez RA, Rojas M, Tadich TA. (2017). Welfare Status of Working Horses and Owners’ Perceptions of Their Animals. Animals (Basel), 7(8), 56. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani7080056

Publication

Animals : an open access journal from MDPI
ISSN: 2076-2615
NlmUniqueID: 101635614
Country: Switzerland
Language: English
Volume: 7
Issue: 8
PII: 56

Researcher Affiliations

Luna, Daniela
  • Programa Doctorado en Ciencias Silvoagropecuarias y Veterinarias, Universidad de Chile, Santa Rosa 11315, La Pintana, Santiago 8820000, Chile. danluna@veterinaria.uchile.cl.
Vásquez, Rodrigo A
  • Instituto de Ecología y Biodiversidad, Departamento de Ciencias Ecológicas, Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad de Chile, Las Palmeras 3425, Ñuñoa, Santiago 7800003, Chile. rvasquez@uchile.cl.
Rojas, Manuel
  • Departamento de Ingenieria Industrial, Facultad de Ciencias Físicas y Matemáticas, Universidad de Chile, Beauchef 851, Santiago 8370456, Chile. manuelrojas@uchile.cl.
Tadich, Tamara A
  • Departamento de Fomento de la Producción Animal, Facultad de Ciencias Veterinarias y Pecuarias, Universidad de Chile, Santa Rosa 11735, La Pintana, Santiago 8820000, Chile. tamaratadich@u.uchile.cl.

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

This article includes 55 references
  1. . World Economic Situation and Prospect 2017. 2017.
  2. Food and Agriculture Organization. The Role, Impact and Welfare of Working (Traction and Transport) Animals. Animal Production and Health Report No. 5, 2014.
  3. 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
  4. Popescu S, Diugan E.A. The relationship between behavioral and other welfare indicators of working horses. J. Equine Vet. Sci. 2013;33:1–12.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jevs.2012.04.001google scholar: lookup
  5. 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.
    doi: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2005.02.002pubmed: 15907574google scholar: lookup
  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 Dec;186(3):385-92.
    doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2009.09.016pubmed: 19926316google scholar: lookup
  7. Ali A.B, El Sayed M.A, Matoock M.Y, Fouad M.A, Heleski C.R. A welfare assessment scoring system for working equids—A method for identifying at risk populations and for monitoring progress of welfare enhancement strategies (trialed in Egypt). Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2016;176:52–62.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2015.12.001google scholar: lookup
  8. World Organization for Animal Health. Chapter 7.12, Welfare of Working Equids. 2016.
  9. Tadich T, Escobar A, Pearson R.A. Husbandry and welfare aspects of urban draught horses in the south of Chile. Arch. Med. Vet. 2008;40:267–273.
    doi: 10.4067/S0301-732X2008000300007google scholar: lookup
  10. Sáez M, Escobar A, Tadich T. Morphological characteristics and most frequent health constraints of urban draught horses attending a free healthcare programme in the south of Chile: A retrospective study (1997–2009). Livestock Res. Rural Dev. 2013;25:91.
  11. Lanas R, Luna D, Tadich T. The link between animal welfare of urban draught horses and livelihoods of their owners: The case of Chile. Proceedings of the 24th Annual Conference of the International Society for Anthrozoology 7–9 July 2015, Saratoga Springs, New York, NY, USA.
  12. Oficina de Estudios y Políticas Agrarias. Región Metropolitana Información Regional. 2015.
  13. Instituto Nacional de Estadística. División Político Administrativa y Censal, Región de la Araucania. 2007.
  14. Instituto Nacional de Estadísticas. Estadísticas sociales de los pueblos indígenas en chile-censo. 2002.
  15. Waiblinger S, Boivin X, Pedersen V, Tosi M.V, Janczak A.M, Visser E.K, Jones R.B. Assessing the human-animal relationship in farmed species: A critical review. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2006;101:185–242.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2006.02.001google scholar: lookup
  16. Hills A.M. The motivational bases of attitudes toward animals. Soc. Anim. 1993;1:111–128.
    doi: 10.1163/156853093X00028google scholar: lookup
  17. Serpell J.A. Factors influencing human attitudes to animals and their welfare. Anim. Welfare 2004;13:145–151.
  18. Schuurman N. Conceptions of equine welfare in Finnish horse magazines. Soc. Anim. 2015;23:250–268.
    doi: 10.1163/15685306-12341268google scholar: lookup
  19. Waiblinger S, Menke C, Coleman G. The relationship between attitudes, personal characteristics and behaviour of stockpeople and subsequent behaviour and production of dairy cows. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2002;79:195–219.
    doi: 10.1016/S0168-1591(02)00155-7google scholar: lookup
  20. Signal T.D, Taylor N. Attitudes to animals: Demographics within a community sample. Soc. Anim. 2006;14:147–157.
    doi: 10.1163/156853006776778743google scholar: lookup
  21. Ellingsen K, Zanella A.J, Bjerkås E, Indrebø A. The relationship between empathy, perception of pain and attitudes toward pets among Norwegian dog owners. Anthrozoös 2010;23:231–243.
    doi: 10.2752/175303710X12750451258931google scholar: lookup
  22. Muri K, Tufte P.A, Skjerve E, Valle P.S. Human-animal relationships in the Norwegian dairy goat industry: Attitudes and empathy towards goats (Part I). Anim. Welfare 2012;21:535–545.
    doi: 10.7120/09627286.21.4.535google scholar: lookup
  23. 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
  24. Fureix C, Pagès M, Bon R, Lassalle JM, Kuntz P, Gonzalez G. A preliminary study of the effects of handling type on horses' emotional reactivity and the human-horse relationship.. Behav Processes 2009 Oct;82(2):202-10.
    doi: 10.1016/j.beproc.2009.06.012pubmed: 19591910google scholar: lookup
  25. Birke L, Hockenhull J, Creighton E. The horse′s tale: Narratives of caring for/about horses. Soc. Anim. 2010;18:331–347.
    doi: 10.1163/156853010X524307google scholar: lookup
  26. Birke L. Talking about Horses: Control and Freedom in the World of “Natural Horsemanship”. Soc. Anim. 2008;16:107–126.
    doi: 10.1163/156853008X291417google scholar: lookup
  27. Birke L. “Learning to speak horse”: The culture of “Natural Horsemanship”. Soc. Anim. 2007;15:217–239.
    doi: 10.1163/156853007X217177google scholar: lookup
  28. Landauer T.K, Foltz P.W, Laham D. An introduction to latent semantic analysis. Discourse Process. 1998;25:259–284.
    doi: 10.1080/01638539809545028google scholar: lookup
  29. Evangelopoulos N, Zhang X, Prybutok V.R. Latent semantic analysis: five methodological recommendations. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 2012;21:70–86.
    doi: 10.1057/ejis.2010.61google scholar: lookup
  30. Dam G, Kaufmann S. Computer assessment of interview data using latent semantic analysis.. Behav Res Methods 2008 Feb;40(1):8-20.
    doi: 10.3758/BRM.40.1.8pubmed: 18411522google scholar: lookup
  31. Burn C.C, Dennison T.L, Whay H.R. Relationship between behaviour and health in working horses, donkeys, and mules in developing countries. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2010;126:109–118.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2010.06.007google scholar: lookup
  32. Carroll CL, Huntington PJ. Body condition scoring and weight estimation of horses.. Equine Vet J 1988 Jan;20(1):41-5.
    doi: 10.1111/j.2042-3306.1988.tb01451.xpubmed: 3366105google scholar: lookup
  33. Popescu S, Diugan EA, Spinu M. The interrelations of good welfare indicators assessed in working horses and their relationships with the type of work.. Res Vet Sci 2014 Apr;96(2):406-14.
    doi: 10.1016/j.rvsc.2013.12.014pubmed: 24461957google scholar: lookup
  34. Cassai G. El caballo de Labranza. Revista El Campesino 1944;96:7–10.
  35. Meyer K. A study of the condition of working horses in Chile. 1992.
  36. Landauer T.K, Dumais S.T. A solution to Plato′s problem: The latent semantic analysis theory of acquisition, induction, and representation of knowledge. Psychol. Rev. 1997;104:211–240.
    doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.104.2.211google scholar: lookup
  37. Blakeway S. The multi-dimensional donkey in landscapes of donkey-human interaction. Rel. Beyond Anthropocentrism 2014;2:59–77.
    doi: 10.7358/rela-2014-001-blakgoogle scholar: lookup
  38. de Aluja A.S. The welfare of working equids in Mexico. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 1998;59:19–29.
    doi: 10.1016/S0168-1591(98)00117-8google scholar: lookup
  39. Biffa D, Woldemeskel M. Causes and factors associated with occurrence of external injuries in working equines in Ethiopia. Intern. J. Appl. Res. Vet. Med. 2006;4:1–7.
  40. Swann W.J. Improving the welfare of working equine animals in developing countries. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2006;100:148–151.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2006.04.001google scholar: lookup
  41. Geiger M, Hovorka AJ. Using physical and emotional parameters to assess donkey welfare in Botswana.. Vet Rec Open 2015;2(1):e000062.
    doi: 10.1136/vetreco-2014-000062pmc: PMC4567146pubmed: 26392888google scholar: lookup
  42. Mac-Leod C. Estudio de los equinos carretoneros atendidos en un policlínico en Valdivia, caracterizando aspectos de hipometría, patologías, alimentación, cascos y herrajes. 1999.
  43. Beltrán J.M. Ganado Caballar. 1954.
  44. 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 Fifth International Colloquium on Working Equines. The future for working equines 30 October–2 November 2006; pp. 99–106, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
  45. 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
  46. Hemsworth P.H. Human-animal interactions in livestock production. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2003;81:185–198.
    doi: 10.1016/S0168-1591(02)00280-0google scholar: lookup
  47. Hemsworth PH, Coleman GJ, Barnett JL, Borg S. Relationships between human-animal interactions and productivity of commercial dairy cows.. J Anim Sci 2000 Nov;78(11):2821-31.
    doi: 10.2527/2000.78112821xpubmed: 11063304google scholar: lookup
  48. Serpell J.A. Anthropomorphism and anthropomorphic selection-beyond the “Cute Response”. Soc. Anim. 2003;11:83–100.
    doi: 10.1163/156853003321618864google scholar: lookup
  49. Voith VL. Attachment of people to companion animals.. Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract 1985 Mar;15(2):289-95.
    doi: 10.1016/S0195-5616(85)50301-0pubmed: 3872510google scholar: lookup
  50. Holloway L. Pets and protein: Placing domestic livestock on hobby-farms in England and Wales. J. Rural Stud. 2001;17:293–307.
    doi: 10.1016/S0743-0167(00)00045-0google scholar: lookup
  51. Wilkie R. Sentient commodities and productive paradoxes: The ambiguous nature of human-livestock relations in Northeast Scotland. J. Rural Stud. 2005;21:213–230.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2004.10.002google scholar: lookup
  52. Montero G. Ladran Sancho II. El caballo en el mundo ceremonial indígena. XII Jornadas Interescuelas/Departamentos de Historia 2009.
  53. Emol Nacional. [(accessed on 29 June 2017)]; Available online: http://www.emol.com/noticias/Nacional/2016/02/04/786822/Vina-del-Mar-Municipio-se-querello-por-maltrato-animal-en-coches-victoria.html.
  54. CNN International Edition. [(accessed on 29 June 2017)]; Available online: http://edition.cnn.com/2014/01/23/opinion/bershadker-ban-horse-drawn-carriages/index.html. (In Spanish)
  55. New York Times. [(accessed on 29 June 2017)]; Available online: https://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/19/nyregion/who-speaks-for-the-horses-in-battle-over-carriages.html.

Citations

This article has been cited 20 times.
  1. Bukhari SSUH, McElligott AG, Rosanowski SM, Parkes RSV. Recognition of emotion and pain by owners benefits the welfare of donkeys in a challenging working environment.. PeerJ 2023;11:e15747.
    doi: 10.7717/peerj.15747pubmed: 37576503google scholar: lookup
  2. Ross M, Proudfoot K, Merkies K, Elsohaby I, Mills M, Macmillan K, Mckenna S, Ritter C. Horse Housing on Prince Edward Island, Canada: Attitudes and Experiences Related to Keeping Horses Outdoors and in Groups.. Animals (Basel) 2023 Jan 13;13(2).
    doi: 10.3390/ani13020275pubmed: 36670815google scholar: lookup
  3. Seck M, Jobling R, Brown AF. Trialling Locally Made, Low-Cost Bits to Improve Bit-Related Welfare Problems in Cart Horses: Findings from a Study in Senegal.. Animals (Basel) 2022 Dec 20;13(1).
    doi: 10.3390/ani13010002pubmed: 36611612google scholar: lookup
  4. 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
  5. Rowland M, Hudson N, Connor M, Dwyer C, Coombs T. The Welfare of Traveller and Gypsy Owned Horses in the UK and Ireland.. Animals (Basel) 2022 Sep 13;12(18).
    doi: 10.3390/ani12182402pubmed: 36139262google scholar: lookup
  6. Grace DC, 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 2022 Sep;19(3):342-353.
    doi: 10.1007/s10393-022-01613-8pubmed: 36048298google scholar: lookup
  7. Hausberger M, Lesimple C, Henry S. Detecting Welfare in a Non-Verbal Species: Social/Cultural Biases and Difficulties in Horse Welfare Assessment.. Animals (Basel) 2021 Jul 30;11(8).
    doi: 10.3390/ani11082249pubmed: 34438708google scholar: lookup
  8. Wild I, Gedge A, Burridge J, Burford J. The Impact of COVID-19 on the Working Equid Community: Responses from 1530 Individuals Accessing NGO Support in 14 Low- and Middle-Income Countries.. Animals (Basel) 2021 May 11;11(5).
    doi: 10.3390/ani11051363pubmed: 34064832google scholar: lookup
  9. Lagos J, Rojas M, Rodrigues JB, Tadich T. Perceptions and Attitudes towards Mules in a Group of Soldiers.. Animals (Basel) 2021 Apr 3;11(4).
    doi: 10.3390/ani11041009pubmed: 33916720google scholar: lookup
  10. Hemsworth LM, Jongman EC, Coleman GJ. The Human-Horse Relationship: Identifying the Antecedents of Horse Owner Attitudes towards Horse Husbandry and Management Behaviour.. Animals (Basel) 2021 Jan 22;11(2).
    doi: 10.3390/ani11020278pubmed: 33499202google scholar: lookup
  11. Fenner K, Hyde M, Crean A, McGreevy P. Identifying Sources of Potential Bias When Using Online Survey Data to Explore Horse Training, Management, and Behaviour: A Systematic Literature Review.. Vet Sci 2020 Sep 22;7(3).
    doi: 10.3390/vetsci7030140pubmed: 32971754google scholar: lookup
  12. Norris SL, Kubasiewicz LM, Watson TL, Little HA, Yadav AK, Thapa S, Raw Z, Burden FA. A New Framework for Assessing Equid Welfare: A Case Study of Working Equids in Nepalese Brick Kilns.. Animals (Basel) 2020 Jun 22;10(6).
    doi: 10.3390/ani10061074pubmed: 32580418google scholar: lookup
  13. 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
  14. Fröhlich N, Sells PD, Sommerville R, Bolwell CF, Cantley C, Martin JE, Gordon SJG, Coombs T. Welfare Assessment and Husbandry Practices of Working Horses in Fiji.. Animals (Basel) 2020 Feb 28;10(3).
    doi: 10.3390/ani10030392pubmed: 32121106google scholar: lookup
  15. 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.2020.00060pubmed: 32118074google scholar: lookup
  16. Hausberger M, Lerch N, Guilbaud E, Stomp M, Grandgeorge M, Henry S, Lesimple C. On-Farm Welfare Assessment of Horses: The Risks of Putting the Cart before the Horse.. Animals (Basel) 2020 Feb 25;10(3).
    doi: 10.3390/ani10030371pubmed: 32106531google scholar: lookup
  17. Lagos J, Tadich TA. Hematological and Biochemical Reference Intervals for Mules in Chile.. Front Vet Sci 2019;6:400.
    doi: 10.3389/fvets.2019.00400pubmed: 31781585google scholar: lookup
  18. Popescu S, Lazar EA, Borda C, Niculae M, Sandru CD, Spinu M. Welfare Quality of Breeding Horses Under Different Housing Conditions.. Animals (Basel) 2019 Mar 5;9(3).
    doi: 10.3390/ani9030081pubmed: 30841611google scholar: lookup
  19. 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/ani9020042pubmed: 30704022google scholar: lookup
  20. 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.