|
|
Burn, C. C., Dennison, T. L., & Whay, H. R. (2010). Relationships between behaviour and health in working horses, donkeys, and mules in developing countries. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 126(3-4), 109–118.
Abstract: Recent studies raise serious welfare concerns regarding the estimated 93.6 million horses, donkeys and mules in developing countries. Most equids are used for work in poor communities, and are commonly afflicted with wounds, poor body condition, respiratory diseases, parasites, dental problems, and lameness. Non-physical welfare problems, such as fear of humans, are also of concern. Interventions to improve working equine welfare aim to prioritise the conditions that cause the most severe impositions on the animals' subjectively experienced welfare, but data identifying which conditions these may be, are lacking. Here we describe a stage in the validation of behavioural welfare indicators that form part of a working equine welfare assessment protocol. Over 4 years, behavioural and physical data were collected from 5481 donkeys, 4504 horses, and 858 mules across nine developing countries. Behaviours included the animals' general alertness, and their responses to four human-interaction tests, using the unfamiliar observer as the human stimulus. Avoidance behaviours correlated significantly with each other across the human-interaction tests, with 21% of animals avoiding the observer, but they showed no associations with likely anthropogenic injuries. Over 13% of equids appeared [`]apathetic': lethargic rather than alert. Measures of unresponsiveness correlated with each other across the five tests, and were associated with poor body condition, abnormal mucous membrane colour, faecal soiling, eye abnormalities, more severe wounds, and older age, depending on the equine species. This suggests that working equids in poor physical health show an unresponsive behavioural profile, consistent with sickness behaviour, exhaustion, chronic pain, or depression-like states.
|
|
|
|
Pritchard, J. C., Lindberg, A. C., Main, D. C. J., & Whay, H. R. (2005). Assessment of the welfare of working horses, mules and donkeys, using health and behaviour parameters. Prev Vet Med, 69(3-4), 265–283.
Abstract: Working animals provide an essential transport resource in developing countries worldwide. Many of these animals are owned by poor people and work in harsh environments, so their welfare is a cause for concern. A protocol was developed to assess the welfare of working horses, mules and donkeys in urban and peri-urban areas, using direct observation of health and behaviour parameters. In this study, 4903 animals used for draught, pack and ridden work in Afghanistan, Egypt, India, Jordan and Pakistan were assessed between December 2002 and April 2003. The data showed that donkeys were more likely than mules or horses to demonstrate avoidance or aggressive behaviour towards an observer, while horses were most likely to make a friendly approach. Fewer than 8% of working equines had abnormal mucous membranes, ectoparasites or poor coat condition. Body lesions occurred predominantly in the areas of the breast/shoulder, withers and girth in all three species, with mules having the highest prevalence of lesions in these areas (22.5, 21.3 and 28.4%, respectively). Among horses and donkeys, the prevalence of these lesions was influenced by the type of work carried out. Lesions on the head, neck, ribs, flank and tail base were seen in less than 10% of animals. Across all three species approximately 70% of animals were thin, having a body condition score (BCS) of 2 or less on a scale of 1-5 (1, very thin; 5, very fat) and more horses were in very thin condition (BCS 1) than mules or donkeys. Over 75% of animals demonstrated limb deformities and abnormalities of gait. The results of this study are being used as the initial stage of a long-term strategy to inform priorities for welfare interventions in working equines and to establish a welfare benchmark. Subsequent stages will rank the welfare concerns identified, assess the contributing risk factors and implement specific interventions to address these risks. Following intervention, success in improving welfare will be measured by repetition of this protocol and comparison with the benchmark.
|
|
