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 / Working horse welfare in Senegal is linked to owner’s ...
PloS one2024; 19(10); e0309149; doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0309149

Working horse welfare in Senegal is linked to owner’s socioeconomic status, their attitudes and belief in horse sentience.

Abstract: The role that working equids play in both rural and urban communities in low and middle-income countries is invaluable. They contribute to daily tasks such as carrying food, water and people, support income generation, and are of social and cultural importance. Despite their importance, global standards of working equid welfare are low. Many variables can impact the welfare status of animals under human care, but often specific factors are explored in isolation. Factors can include, but are not limited to an owner's socioeconomic status and their attitudes and beliefs towards animals. In this study we assessed the relationships between 1.) Attitudes and belief in horse sentience, 2.) Owner's socioeconomic status (including household income, coverage of needs and education) and 3.) Horse welfare status. The study, consisting of an owner questionnaire and a welfare assessment of their horses, was conducted in three regions in Senegal; participants included 299 owners and their horses. Overall, our findings show that a more positive attitude towards horses, stronger belief in horse sentience, a higher standard of living and a greater ability to cover the needs of the household was associated with more positive horse welfare. A stronger belief in horse sentience was a significant predictor of horse's body condition, larger households and those with a higher income were more likely to own a horse in good general health. Our findings demonstrate a complex relationship between working horse welfare, their owner's attitudes, and their socioeconomic status. It is the first study we are aware of that has explored the relationships between these different variables. The findings from this study provide valuable insights into the interconnected factors which impact upon working equid welfare in Senegal and potentially more widely.
Copyright: © 2024 Seck et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2024-10-18 PubMed ID: 39423199PubMed Central: PMC11488707DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0309149Google 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.

This article explores equine welfare in Senegal, showing clear links to the socioeconomic status of their owners, as well as the owners’ attitudes towards horses and beliefs about their sentience.

Overview of the Study

  • The research focused on assessing the welfare of working horses in Senegal, with emphasis on their role in sustaining rural and urban communities in countries with lower and middle-income demographics.
  • The study looked at the links between horse welfare, owner attitudes, beliefs about horse sentience, and the owner’s socioeconomic background. The latter included aspects like household income, coverage of needs, and level of education.
  • Data for the study was collected through a questionnaire for horse owners and physical welfare assessment of the horses themselves. The research spanned three regions in Senegal and involved 299 owners with their horses.

Key Findings

  • The study revealed a direct relationship between horse welfare and the positive attitude of the owners towards their horses, along with their belief in horse sentience. A better standard of living and ability to meet household needs also coincided with improved horse welfare.
  • Horses tended to be in better health if their owners had stronger beliefs in their sentience. Furthermore, wealthier households and those with more members were more likely to own healthier horses.
  • The research concluded that equine welfare in Senegal is intertwined with the attitudes and socioeconomic background of the owners, creating a complex relationship that has not been fully explored before in other studies.

Significance of the Study

  • The study is the first of its kind to delve into the interrelationships between horse welfare, owners’ attitudes and beliefs, and their socioeconomic status.
  • The outcome of the research provides invaluable insights into the factors that shape equine welfare in Senegal, and possibly in broader contexts as well. These findings could contribute towards efforts aimed at enhancing working equine welfare in low and middle-income countries.

Cite This Article

APA
Seck M, Carder G, Wathan J, Randau M, Fletcher K, Proops L. (2024). Working horse welfare in Senegal is linked to owner’s socioeconomic status, their attitudes and belief in horse sentience. PLoS One, 19(10), e0309149. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0309149

Publication

PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
NlmUniqueID: 101285081
Country: United States
Language: English
Volume: 19
Issue: 10
Pages: e0309149
PII: e0309149

Researcher Affiliations

Seck, Mactar
  • Brooke Action for Horses and Donkeys, Senegal.
Carder, Gemma
  • Brooke Action for Horses and Donkeys, London, United Kingdom.
Wathan, Jennifer
  • Brooke Action for Horses and Donkeys, London, United Kingdom.
Randau, Marcela
  • Brooke Action for Horses and Donkeys, London, United Kingdom.
Fletcher, Kate
  • Brooke Action for Horses and Donkeys, London, United Kingdom.
Proops, Leanne
  • Centre for Comparative and Evolutionary Psychology, Department of Psychology, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, United Kingdom.

MeSH Terms

  • Animals
  • Horses
  • Humans
  • Senegal
  • Animal Welfare
  • Male
  • Female
  • Attitude
  • Social Class
  • Adult
  • Surveys and Questionnaires
  • Middle Aged
  • Ownership

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors have no competing interests.

References

This article includes 67 references
  1. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. FAOSTAT. 2021. Available: http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QA
  2. Allan FK. A Landscaping Analysis of Working Equid Population Numbers in LMICs, with Policy Recommendations.. 2021; 1–142.
  3. Volsche Shelly, Wathan Jennifer, Abbas Naeem, Kavata Laura, Capponi Giovanna, Ontillera Richardo. The Human Dimension of Human-Animal Interactions. Insights from Social and Life Sciences 2023.
  4. Goodrum F, Theuri S, Mutua E, Carder G. The Donkey Skin Trade: Challenges and Opportunities for Policy Change. Glob Policy 2022;13: 304–309.
    doi: 10.1111/1758-5899.13072google scholar: lookup
  5. Pritchard J, Upjohn M, Hirson T. Improving working equine welfare in ‘hard-win’ situations, where gains are difficult, expensive or marginal. PLoS One 2018;13: 1–16.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0191950pmc: PMC5800664pubmed: 29408887google scholar: lookup
  6. Brooke. United Nations recognises role of working animals in food security. 2016. Available: https://www.thebrooke.org/news/un-recognises-working-animals-role Reg
  7. Pritchard JC, Lindberg AC, Main DCJ, Whay HR. Assessment of the welfare of working horses, mules and donkeys, using health and behaviour parameters. Prev Vet Med 2005;69: 265–283.
    doi: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2005.02.002pubmed: 15907574google scholar: lookup
  8. Tadich TA. Working equids: Linking human and animal welfare. Vet Rec 2020;187: 442–444.
    doi: 10.1136/vr.m4572pubmed: 33247052google scholar: lookup
  9. Stringer AP, Christley RM, Bell CE, Gebreab F, Tefera G, Reed K. Owner reported diseases of working equids in central Ethiopia. Equine Vet J 2017;49: 501–506.
    doi: 10.1111/evj.12633pmc: PMC5484383pubmed: 27565130google scholar: lookup
  10. Skippen L, Compston P, Saville K, Upjohn M, Hirson T. Exploring approaches to dentistry in working equids. Proc 7th Int Colloq Work Equids, R Holloway, Univ London, UK 1st-3rd July, 2014 2014; 170–175.
  11. Ali ABA, El Sayed MA, Matoock MY, Fouad MA, Heleski CR. 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
  12. Brooke. The contribution of working livestock to the food security agenda for policy and programming: the urgent case for recognition. 2021. Available: https://www.thebrooke.org/for-professionals/working-livestock-contribute-food-security
  13. 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 Vet Sci 2020;7.
    doi: 10.3389/fvets.2020.00060pmc: PMC7033506pubmed: 32118074google scholar: lookup
  14. Valette D. Invisible workers: the economic contributions of working donkeys, horses and mules to livelihoods. 2015.
  15. Valette D. Invisible helpers- Women’s views on the contributions of working donkeys, horses and mules to their lives. 2014.
  16. Clancy C, Watson T, Raw Z. Resilience and the role of equids in humanitarian crises. Disasters 2022;46: 1075–1097.
    doi: 10.1111/disa.12501pmc: PMC9540358pubmed: 34255386google scholar: lookup
  17. Diop M, Fadiga ML. The economic contribution of working equids in Senegal. 2019.
  18. Brooke. The Socioeconomic Contribution of donkeys in Burkina Faso. 2020.
  19. 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
  20. Luna D, Tadich TA. Why should human-animal interactions be included in research of working equids’ welfare?. Animals 2019;9: 1–15.
    doi: 10.3390/ani9020042pmc: PMC6406816pubmed: 30704022google scholar: lookup
  21. Agegnehu A, Abebaw G, Nejash A. Health and welfare status of donkeys in and around Hawassa Town, Southern Ethiopia. J Vet Med Anim Heal 2017;9: 300–312.
    doi: 10.5897/jvmah2017.0617google scholar: lookup
  22. Guyo S, Legesse S, Tonamo A. A review on welfare and management practices of working equines. J Anim Sci 2015;3: 203–209.
  23. Scantlebury CE, Zerfu A, Pinchbeck GP, Reed K, Gebreab F, Aklilu N. Participatory appraisal of the impact of epizootic lymphangitis in Ethiopia. Prev Vet Med 2015;120: 265–276.
    doi: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2015.03.012pubmed: 25980831google scholar: lookup
  24. Duguma BE, Tesfaye T, Kassaye A, Kassa A, Blakeway SJ. Control and Prevention of Epizootic Lymphangitis in Mules: An Integrated Community-Based Intervention, Bahir Dar, Ethiopia. Front Vet Sci 2021;8: 1–18.
    doi: 10.3389/fvets.2021.648267pmc: PMC8632952pubmed: 34869708google scholar: lookup
  25. Redmond EF, Jones D, Rushton J. Economic assessment of African horse sickness vaccine impact. Equine Vet J 2022;54: 368–378.
    doi: 10.1111/evj.13430pubmed: 33527473google scholar: lookup
  26. Curran MM, Smith DG. The impact of donkey ownership on the livelihoods of female peri-urban dwellers in Ethiopia. Trop Anim Health Prod 2005;37: 67–86.
    doi: 10.1007/s11250-005-9009-ypubmed: 16335072google scholar: lookup
  27. Gichure M, Onono J, Wahome R, Gathura P. Analysis of the benefits and production challenges of working donkeys in smallholder farming systems in Kenya. Vet World 2020;13: 2346–2352.
    doi: 10.14202/vetworld.2020.2346-2352pmc: PMC7750220pubmed: 33363325google scholar: lookup
  28. Solomon A, Fekadu A, Molla B, Sheferaw D. The prevalence of foot related problems in working donkeys and its implication on the livelihood of donkey owners in Hawassa City, Southern Ethiopia. International Journal of Livestock Production 2019;10: 86–93.
    doi: 10.5897/IJLP2018.0527google scholar: lookup
  29. Bonsi M, Anderson NE, Carder G. The socioeconomic impact of health problems of working equids in low- and middle-income countries: A scoping review on the female-gender perspectives. 2023; 1–9.
  30. Filho WL. Handbook of Climate Change Across the Food Supply Chain. 2022.
  31. Kumar RS, Tomar R, Kumar P.R. Nath S, Murugan G, Ramesh S. Comparison of different working equine communities: their animal welfare and socio-economic status in Gwalior, India. The 6th International Colloquium on Working Equids: learning from others. Proceedings of an International Colloquium, New Delhi, India, 29 November—2 December 2010 2010. pp. 96–99.
  32. Kumar R. S., Tomar R., Kumar P R., Nath S., Murugan G., Ramesh S. Comparison of different working equine communities: their animal welfare and socio-economic status in Gwalior, India. The 6th International Colloquium on Working Equids: learning from others Proceedings of an International Colloquium, New Delhi, India 2010.
  33. Lanas R., Luna D., Tadich T. The relationship between working horse welfare and their owners’ socio-economic status. Anim Welf 2018;27: 47–54.
  34. Strauss C, Lever Taylor B, Gu J, Kuyken W, Baer R, Jones F. What is compassion and how can we measure it? A review of definitions and measures. Clin Psychol Rev 2016;47: 15–27.
    doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2016.05.004pubmed: 27267346google scholar: lookup
  35. Paul ES. Empathy with Animals and with Humans: Are They Linked?. Anthrozoos 2000;13: 194–202.
    doi: 10.2752/089279300786999699google scholar: lookup
  36. McPhedran S. A review of the evidence for associations between empathy, violence, and animal cruelty. Aggress Violent Behav 2009;14: 1–4.
    doi: 10.1016/j.avb.2008.07.005google scholar: lookup
  37. Kielland C, Skjerve E, Østerås O, Zanella AJ. Dairy farmer attitudes and empathy toward animals are associated with animal welfare indicators. J Dairy Sci 2010;93: 2998–3006.
    doi: 10.3168/jds.2009-2899pubmed: 20630216google scholar: lookup
  38. Hawkins RD, Williams JM. Children’s Beliefs about Animal Minds (Child-BAM): Associations with Positive and Negative Child–Animal Interactions. Anthrozoos 2016;29: 503–519.
    doi: 10.1080/08927936.2016.1189749google scholar: lookup
  39. Hills AM. Empathy and Belief in the Mental Experience of Animals. Anthrozoos 1995;8: 132–142.
  40. 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: 1–17.
    doi: 10.7717/peerj.15747pmc: PMC10416770pubmed: 37576503google scholar: lookup
  41. Pol F, Kling-Eveillard F, Champigneulle F, Fresnay E, Ducrocq M, Courboulay V. Human–animal relationship influences husbandry practices, animal welfare and productivity in pig farming. Animal 2021;15: 100103.
    doi: 10.1016/j.animal.2020.100103pubmed: 33573972google scholar: lookup
  42. Bertenshaw C, Rowlinson P. Exploring Stock Managers’ Perceptions of the Human—Animal Relationship on Dairy Farms and an Association with Milk Production. 2015;22: 59–69.
    doi: 10.2752/175303708X390473google scholar: lookup
  43. Ajzen I. Nature and operation of attitudes. Annu Rev Psychol 2001;52: 27–58.
    doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.27pubmed: 11148298google scholar: lookup
  44. Haddy E, Burden F, Raw Z, Rodrigues JB, Zappi Bello JH, Brown J. Belief in Animal Sentience and Affective Owner Attitudes are linked to Positive Working Equid Welfare across Six Countries. J Appl Anim Welf Sci 2023;00: 1–19.
    doi: 10.1080/10888705.2023.2228029pubmed: 37381695google scholar: lookup
  45. Edgar JL, Mullan SM. Knowledge and attitudes of 52 UK pet rabbit owners at the point of sale. Vet Rec 2011;168: 353.
    doi: 10.1136/vr.c6191pubmed: 21498237google scholar: lookup
  46. Hemsworth PH, Coleman GJ, Barnett JL. Improving the attitude and behaviour of stockpersons towards pigs and the consequences on the behaviour and reproductive performance of commercial pigs. Appl Anim Behav Sci 1994;39: 349–362.
    doi: 10.1016/0168-1591(94)90168-6google 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;78: 2821–2831.
    doi: 10.2527/2000.78112821xpubmed: 11063304google scholar: lookup
  48. Herzog H. A., Galvin S. Common sense and the mental lives of animals: An empirical approach. Anthropomorphism, Anecdotes, and Animals 1997. pp. 237–253.
  49. Cornish A, Wilson B, Raubenheimer D, McGreevy P. Demographics regarding belief in non-human animal sentience and emotional empathy with animals: A pilot study among attendees of an animal welfare symposium. Animals 2018;8: 1–10.
    doi: 10.3390/ani8100174pmc: PMC6210928pubmed: 30287771google scholar: lookup
  50. Phillips CJC, McCulloch S. Student attitudes on animal sentience and use of animals in society. J Biol Educ 2005;40: 17–24.
    doi: 10.1080/00219266.2005.9656004google scholar: lookup
  51. Morris P, Knight S, Lesley S. Belief in animal mind: Does familiarity with animals influence beliefs about animal emotions?. Soc Anim 2012;20: 211–224.
    doi: 10.1163/15685306-12341234google scholar: lookup
  52. Higgs MJ, Bipin S, Cassaday HJ. Man’s best friends: Attitudes towards the use of different kinds of animal depend on belief in different species’ mental capacities and purpose of use. R Soc Open Sci 2020;7.
    doi: 10.1098/rsos.191162pmc: PMC7062065pubmed: 32257304google scholar: lookup
  53. Gu J, Baer R, Cavanagh K, Kuyken W, Strauss C. Development and Psychometric Properties of the Sussex-Oxford Compassion Scales (SOCS). Assessment 2020;27: 3–20.
    doi: 10.1177/1073191119860911pmc: PMC6906538pubmed: 31353931google scholar: lookup
  54. Knight S, Vrij A, Cherryman J, Nunkoosing K. Attitudes towards animal use and belief in animal mind. Anthrozoos 2004;17: 43–62.
    doi: 10.2752/089279304786991945google scholar: lookup
  55. HP G.J., C. Human-Livestock Interactions: the Stockperson and the Productivity and Welfare of Intensively Farmed Animals. Second edi. 2nd editio. CAB International; 2011.
    doi: 10.1079/9781845936730.0000google scholar: lookup
  56. Ajzen Icek. From Intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. Action Control 1985; 11–39.
  57. Benoit-Cattin M, JF. L’exploitation agricole familiale en Afrique SoudanoSahélienne. 1982.
  58. Alkire S, Kanagaratnam U, Suppa N. The global multidimensional poverty index (MPI) 2021. 2021.
  59. Mellor DJ, Beausoleil NJ, Littlewood KE, McLean AN, McGreevy PD, Jones B. The 2020 Five Domains Model: Including Human–Animal Interactions in Assessments of Animal Welfare. Anim 2020;10: 1870.
    doi: 10.3390/ani10101870pmc: PMC7602120pubmed: 33066335google scholar: lookup
  60. Mendl M, Burman OHP, Paul ES. An integrative and functional framework for the study of animal emotion and mood. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 2010;277: 2895–2904.
    doi: 10.1098/rspb.2010.0303pmc: PMC2982018pubmed: 20685706google scholar: lookup
  61. 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: 1–21.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0192354pmc: PMC5821349pubmed: 29466391google scholar: lookup
  62. RStudio Team. RStudio: Integrated Development for R. 2020.
  63. Brooks ME, Kristensen K, van Benthem KJ, Magnusson A, Berg CW, Nielsen A. glmmTMB balances speed and flexibility among packages for zero-inflated generalized linear mixed modeling. R J 2017;9: 378–400.
    doi: 10.32614/rj-2017-066google scholar: lookup
  64. Christensen RHB. Regression Models for Ordinal Data [R package ordinal version 2022.11–16]. 2022.
  65. Burn CC, Dennison TL, Whay HR. Relationships 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
  66. Whay HR, Dikshit AK, Hockenhull J, Parker RMA, Banerjee A, Hughes SI. 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 2015;10: e0126160.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0126160pmc: PMC4441452pubmed: 26000967google scholar: lookup
  67. Mathews S, Herzog HA. Personality and attitudes toward the treatment of animals. Soc Anim 1997;5: 169–175.
    doi: 10.1163/156853097X00060google scholar: lookup

Citations

This article has been cited 0 times.
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join 99,344 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.