Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2021 Jul;53(4):763-770.
doi: 10.1111/evj.13349. Epub 2020 Oct 6.

Comparison of working equid welfare across three regions of Mexico

Affiliations

Comparison of working equid welfare across three regions of Mexico

Emily Haddy et al. Equine Vet J. 2021 Jul.

Abstract

Background: Factors affecting working equid welfare are wide-ranging and reflect cultural, economic and climatic conditions, the type of work equids are used for, and individual differences in the practices of their handlers. In Mexico working equids are widely used for facilitating agricultural activities, however, welfare issues are common.

Objectives: To assess working equids across three communities in Mexico, identify predominant welfare problems and document how these problems vary across locations, associated working roles and species type.

Study design: Cross-sectional survey.

Methods: The study combined the administration of a wide-ranging questionnaire to equid handlers/owners and a welfare assessment of their animal. 120 equid owners were asked about their equid management practices, the working conditions and health status of their animal. The welfare of their equids (56 donkeys, 7 mules, 57 horses) was assessed by evaluating body condition, signs of illness or injury and behavioural indicators.

Results: Welfare varied by species, working role, sex and location. The poorest welfare was seen in one of the two arid regions (the third location having a tropical climate). Donkeys had poorer welfare than horses, and equids used for packing had poorer welfare than those used for riding and agroforestry. Overall poor body condition and wounds were the most common problems seen.

Main limitations: Work type, species type and location strongly co-varied, thus the impact of each factor could not be assessed in isolation. The sample size was relatively small.

Conclusions: Results showed significant regional variations in welfare, suggesting that environmental and/or cultural variations are producing a major effect on welfare.

Keywords: EARS tool; animal welfare; donkey; horse; mule; welfare assessment.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

References

REFERENCES

    1. FAOSTAT (2011). FAO Statistical Year Book. Food and Agricultural Organisation of the United Nations. [cited 2019 Sep 5]. Available from http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#home
    1. 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;69:265-83.
    1. Stringer A. Improving animal health for poverty alleviation and sustainable livelihoods. Vet Rec. 2014;175:526-9.
    1. Upjohn MM, Pfeiffer DU, Verheyen KLP. Helping working Equidae and their owners in developing countries: monitoring and evaluation of evidence-based interventions. Vet J. 2014;199:210-6.
    1. 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;126:109-18.

LinkOut - more resources