Welfare Status of Working Horses and Owners′ Perceptions of Their Animals
Abstract
:Simple Summary
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Welfare Assessment Protocol for Working Equines
2.1.1. Direct Welfare Indicators
2.1.2. Indirect Welfare Indicators
2.1.3. Horses′ General Characteristics
2.2. Owners’ Perception of Their Horses
2.3. Statistical Analysis
3. Results
3.1. General Characteristics
3.2. Working Horse Welfare Assessment: Direct and Indirect Indicators
3.3. Interactions between Animal-Based Information and Indirect Indicators
3.4. Perceptions of Horses
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Acknowledgments
Author Contributions
Conflicts of Interest
References
- World Economic Situation and Prospect 2017. Country Classifications Data Sources, Country Classifications and Aggregation Methodology, United Nation. 2017. Available online: https://www.un.org/development/desa/dpad/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/publication/2017wesp_full_en.pdf (accessed on 27 June 2017).
- The Role, Impact and Welfare of Working (Traction and Transport) Animals. Animal Production and Health Report. No. 5. Food and Agriculture Organization, FAO: Rome, Italy, 2014. Available online: http://www.fao.org/3/a-i3381e.pdf (accessed on 21 February 2017).
- Tadich, T.A.; Stuardo-Escobar, L.H. Strategies for improving the welfare of working equids in the Americas: A Chilean example. Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz. 2014, 33, 203–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Popescu, S.; Diugan, E.A. The relationship between behavioral and other welfare indicators of working horses. J. Equine Vet. Sci. 2013, 33, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pritchard, J.C.; Lindberg, A.C.; Main, D.C.J.; Whay, H.R. Assessment of the welfare of working horses, mules and donkeys, using health and behaviour parameters. Prev. Vet. Med. 2005, 69, 265–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Burn, C.C.; Dennison, T.L.; Whay, H.R. Environmental and demographic risk factors for poor welfare in working horses, donkeys and mules in developing countries. Vet. J. 2010, 186, 385–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chapter 7.12, Welfare of Working Equids. World Organization for Animal Health, OIE, 2016. Available online: http://www.oie.int/fileadmin/Home/eng/Health_standards/tahc/current/chapitre_aw_working_equids.pdf (accessed on 21 February 2017).
- 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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. [Google Scholar]
- Lanas, R.; Luna, D.; Tadich, T. The link between animal welfare of urban draught horses and livelihoods of their owners: The case of Chile. In Proceedings of the 24th Annual Conference of the International Society for Anthrozoology, Saratoga Springs, New York, NY, USA, 7–9 July 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Región Metropolitana Información Regional, Oficina de Estudios y Políticas Agrarias, ODEPA, 2015. Available online: http://www.odepa.cl/wp-content/files_mf/1437485361Metropolitanajulio.pdf (accessed on 5 February 2017) . (In Spanish).
- División Político Administrativa y Censal, Región de la Araucania. Instituto Nacional de Estadística, INE, 2007. Available online: http://www.inearaucania.cl/archivos/files/pdf/DivisionPoliticoAdministrativa/araucania.pdf (accessed on 5 February 2017). (In Spanish).
- Estadísticas sociales de los pueblos indígenas en chile-censo. Instituto Nacional de Estadísticas, INE, 2002. Available online: http://www.ine.cl/canales/chile_estadistico/estadisticas_sociales_culturales/etnias/pdf/estadisticas_indigenas_2002_11_09_09.pdf (accessed on 21 February 2017). (In Spanish).
- 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hills, A.M. The motivational bases of attitudes toward animals. Soc. Anim. 1993, 1, 111–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Serpell, J.A. Factors influencing human attitudes to animals and their welfare. Anim. Welfare 2004, 13, 145–151. [Google Scholar]
- Schuurman, N. Conceptions of equine welfare in Finnish horse magazines. Soc. Anim. 2015, 23, 250–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Signal, T.D.; Taylor, N. Attitudes to animals: Demographics within a community sample. Soc. Anim. 2006, 14, 147–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kielland, C.; Skjerve, E.; Østerås, O.; Zanella, A.J. Dairy farmer attitudes and empathy toward animals are associated with animal welfare indicators. J. Dairy Sci. 2010, 93, 2998–3006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Fureix, C.; Pagès, M.; Bon, R.; Lassalle, J.M.; 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, 82, 202–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Birke, L.; Hockenhull, J.; Creighton, E. The horse′s tale: Narratives of caring for/about horses. Soc. Anim. 2010, 18, 331–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Birke, L. Talking about Horses: Control and Freedom in the World of “Natural Horsemanship”. Soc. Anim. 2008, 16, 107–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Birke, L. “Learning to speak horse”: The culture of “Natural Horsemanship”. Soc. Anim. 2007, 15, 217–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Landauer, T.K.; Foltz, P.W.; Laham, D. An introduction to latent semantic analysis. Discourse Process. 1998, 25, 259–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Evangelopoulos, N.; Zhang, X.; Prybutok, V.R. Latent semantic analysis: five methodological recommendations. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 2012, 21, 70–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dam, G.; Kaufmann, S. Computer assessment of interview data using latent semantic analysis. Behav. Res. Methods 2008, 40, 8–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carroll, C.L.; Huntington, P.J. Body condition scoring and weight estimation of horses. Equine Vet. J. 1988, 20, 41–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Popescu, S.; Diugan, E.A.; Spinu, M. The interrelations of good welfare indicators assessed in working horses and their relationships with the type of work. Res. Vet. Sci. 2014, 96, 406–414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Cassai, G. El caballo de Labranza. Revista El Campesino 1944, 96, 7–10. (In Spanish) [Google Scholar]
- Meyer, K. A study of the condition of working horses in Chile. Master’s Thesis, University College of North Wales, Bangor, Gwynedd, UK, 1992. [Google Scholar]
- 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Blakeway, S. The multi-dimensional donkey in landscapes of donkey-human interaction. Rel. Beyond Anthropocentrism 2014, 2, 59–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- de Aluja, A.S. The welfare of working equids in Mexico. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 1998, 59, 19–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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. [Google Scholar]
- Swann, W.J. Improving the welfare of working equine animals in developing countries. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2006, 100, 148–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Geiger, M.; Hovorka, A. J. Using physical and emotional parameters to assess donkey welfare in Botswana. Vet. Rec. Open. 2015, 2, e000062. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Mac-Leod, C. Estudio de los equinos carretoneros atendidos en un policlínico en Valdivia, caracterizando aspectos de hipometría, patologías, alimentación, cascos y herrajes. Memoria de título, Escuela de Medicina Veterinaria, Universidad Austral de Chile: Valdivia, Chile, 1999. (In Spanish) [Google Scholar]
- Beltrán, J.M. Ganado Caballar, 1st ed.; Salvat Editores SA: Barcelona, Spain, 1954. (In Spanish) [Google Scholar]
- 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. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Colloquium on Working Equines. The future for working equines, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 30 October–2 November 2006; pp. 99–106. [Google Scholar]
- Upjohn, M.M.; Pfeiffer, D.U.; Verheyen, K.L.P. Helping working equidae and their owners in developing countries: Monitoring and evaluation of evidence-based interventions. Vet. J. 2014, 199, 210–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hemsworth, P.H. Human-animal interactions in livestock production. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2003, 81, 185–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hemsworth, P.H.; Coleman, G.J.; Barnett, J.L.; Borg, S. Relationships between human-animal interactions and productivity of commercial dairy cows. J. Anim. Sci. 2000, 78, 2821–2831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Serpell, J.A. Anthropomorphism and anthropomorphic selection-beyond the “Cute Response”. Soc. Anim. 2003, 11, 83–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Voith, V.L. Attachment of people to companion animals. Vet. Clin. N. Am. Small Anim. Pract. 1985, 15, 289–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Holloway, L. Pets and protein: Placing domestic livestock on hobby-farms in England and Wales. J. Rural Stud. 2001, 17, 293–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wilkie, R. Sentient commodities and productive paradoxes: The ambiguous nature of human-livestock relations in Northeast Scotland. J. Rural Stud. 2005, 21, 213–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Montero, G. Ladran Sancho II. El caballo en el mundo ceremonial indígena. XII Jornadas Interescuelas/Departamentos de Historia. Departamento de Historia, Facultad de Humanidades y Centro Regional Universitario Bariloche. Universidad Nacional del Comahue, San Carlos de Bariloche, 2009. Available online: http://cdsa.aacademica.org/000-008/1380 (accessed on 21 February 2017) . (In Spanish).
- Emol Nacional. 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 (accessed on 29 June 2017).
- CNN International Edition. Available online: http://edition.cnn.com/2014/01/23/opinion/bershadker-ban-horse-drawn-carriages/index.html (accessed on 29 June 2017). (In Spanish).
- New York Times. Available online: https://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/19/nyregion/who-speaks-for-the-horses-in-battle-over-carriages.html (accessed on 29 June 2017).
Welfare Indicators | Categorization | Description |
---|---|---|
Skin lesion | Present/absent | Wounds of any size and severity were recorded according to their location. Lesions at labial commissures of the mouth were also included. |
Body condition score | Adequate/inadequate | Assessed on a five-point scale from 1 (emaciated) to 5 (obese) including half scores [6,32]. Scores of 3, 3.5 and 4 were considered adequate. |
Hoof health | Adequate/inadequate | Quality, shape and conformation of hoofs were assessed. The hooves were considered adequate if these were round and smooth, had no cracks or sections missing, and did not show defects of the hoof capsule [31,33]. |
Coat and skin condition | Adequate/inadequate | The coat and skin condition was recorded adequate if the hair coat was uniform, with a general healthy aspect (shiny), without dryness or dirt (mud or feces) or presence of ectoparasites of any species (in hair or skin) [5,33]. |
Gait abnormalities | Present/absent | Assessed by observation of the horse while walking in a straight line for approximately 20 meters. The observer assessed presence of lameness, uneven stride, reluctance to put weight on one or more limbs, uneven head-nodding or hip movement [31]. |
Indicator | Categorization | Description |
---|---|---|
General attitude | Alert/apathetic or depressed | The horse was observed (only by observer) from a distance of 3 to 5 meters for 60 seconds [4]. The horse’s response was categorized as: Alert: when the animal was attentive and responds to the different stimuli of the environment (eyes wide open, active movement of the ears, head, tail and/or skin to keep away flies) [4]. Apathetic or depressed when it showed decreased responses to the environmental stimuli (head lowered, eyes half closed, complete or partial cessation of tail and skin movements to avoid insects, reduced ear movement) [4,31]. Apathetic and depressed were combined in the current study based on criteria of Burn et al. [31]. |
Approximation test | Indifference/friendliness/ avoidance/aggressiveness | The observer approached at an angle of approximately 20° to the sagittal plane of the animal’s body and stopped at a distance of 30 cm from the head of the horse [4]. The observer recorded the horse’s response at the moment that he stopped. The owner was instructed to perform exactly the same procedure and then the observer recorded the animal’s response [4]. Responses were recorded as: Indifference: Immobile and relaxed without attempts to approach or move away from the observer/owner, depressed or relaxed body position and facial expression (with or without the ears moving, relaxed lips, possibly eyes half closed) [4]. Friendliness: Movement of the head toward the observer/owner, with relaxed face and normally open eyes, ears turned forward, no wrinkling around the mouth or nostrils [4]. Avoidance: The horse is immobile with a tense body position and facial expression (head up, eyes wide open and lips held tight) or the animal turning the head or attempts to move away from observer/owner [4]. Aggressiveness: The horse attempts to kick or bite, eyes fully opened and head oriented toward observer/owner, nostrils are dilated with or without wrinkles around the mouth, may paw or stomp the ground [4]. |
Walk down side | Indifference/friendliness/ avoidance/aggressiveness | The observer walked alongside the horse toward its rear and back again, maintaining a distance of 30 cm from its body, then the observer recorded the horse’s response [4]. The owner was instructed to perform the same procedure. The horse′s response was categorized exactly as in the approximation test [4]. |
Chin contact | Accepts/avoids | The observer slowly placed their hand under the animal’s chin and assessing if the horse accepted or avoided the contact [31]. The owner was instructed to perform the same procedure. The horse′s response was categorized as accepts or avoids the contact [31]. |
Allows to pick up a limb | Accepts/avoids | The observer assessed if the horse resisted or not the lifting up of their left front limb. The owner was instructed to perform the same procedure. |
Welfare Indicators | Categorization | Description |
---|---|---|
1. Feeding practices | ||
Frequency of feeding | Once a day/twice a day/three or more per day | The owner was asked how many times per day he/she supplied water to their horse. |
Water availability | Ad libitum/not ad libitum | The owner was asked if their horse had water available ad libitum when not working. |
2. Working practices | ||
Frequency of use per day | Days per week | The owner was asked about how many days per week he/she uses the horse for work |
Frequency of use per week | Hours per day | The owner was asked how many hours per day he/she uses the horse for work. |
Work type | Type of load | The owner was asked about the activities in which he/she uses the horse. |
3. Shoeing practices | ||
Frequency of shoeing | Every 15/between 16–30/>30 days | The owner was asked about the frequency that his/her horse is shod. |
Responsible person | Farrier/owner | The owner was asked about the main person responsible of the shoeing of the horse. |
4. Preventive management | ||
Deworming | Never/<6 month/>6 month | The owner was asked when was the last time his/her horse was dewormed. The response was categorized as never; less than 6 months ago; or more than 6 months ago. |
5. Veterinary consultation | Never/<1 year/>1 year | The owner was asked about the last time his/her horse was examined by a veterinarian. The response was categorized as never (if the horse has never been examined by a veterinarian); less than a year ago; or over a year ago. |
Descriptor | Metropolitana de Santiago (n = 48) | Araucanía (n = 52) | Total (n = 100) |
---|---|---|---|
Average age (years (SD)) | 8.1 (3.7) a | 9.2 (5.1) a | 8.7 (4.5) |
Age range | 2–15 | 2.5–25 | 2–25 |
Estimated live weight average (kg (SD)) | 388 (81.4) a | 436 (76.1) a | 413 (82) |
Anamorphosic index adequacy for draught activities (% (n)) | 23 (11) a | 37 (19) a | 30 (30) |
Geldings (% (n)) | 10 (5) a | 46 (24) b | 29 (29) |
Stallions (% (n)) | 19 (9) a | 2 (1) b | 10 (10) |
Mares (% (n)) | 71 (34) a | 52 (27) a | 61 (61) |
Indicators | Metropolitana de Santiago | Araucania | Total | p-Value |
---|---|---|---|---|
n (%) | n (%) | n (%) | ||
Inadequate body condition score | 7 (15) | 10 (19) | 17 (17) | 0.53 |
Presence of body lesions (skin) | 30 (63) | 17 (33) | 47 (47) | <0.05 |
Lesions at the labial commissures | 3 (6) | 0 | 3 (3) | 0.10 |
Head/neck | 17 (35) | 3 (6) | 20 (20) | <0.001 |
Breast/shoulder | 9 (19) | 6 (12) | 15 (15) | 0.31 |
Thorax/abdomen | 13 (27) | 11 (21) | 24 (24) | 0.48 |
Hindquarters/tail base | 9 (19) | 4 (8) | 13 (13) | 0.13 |
Forelegs/hindlegs | 10 (21) | 4 (8) | 14 (14) | 0.08 |
Abnormal coat and skin | 8 (17) | 6 (12) | 14 (14) | 0.46 |
Abnormalities of hoof | 25 (52) | 28 (54) | 53 (53) | 0.85 |
Abnormal gait/lameness | 9 (19) | 4 (8) | 13 (13) | 0.13 |
Indicators | Metropolitana de Santiago | Araucania | Total | p-Value |
---|---|---|---|---|
n (%) | n (%) | n (%) | ||
General attitude | ||||
Alert | 46 (96) | 51 (98) | 97 (97) | 0.60 |
Apathetic/depressed | 2 (4) | 1 (2) | 3 (3) | 0.60 |
Response to observer approach | ||||
Indifference | 11 (23) | 1 (2) | 12 (12) | <0.001 |
Friendly | 30 (63) | 44 (85) | 74 (74) | <0.01 |
Avoidance | 3 (6) | 6 (12) | 9 (9) | 0.49 |
Aggression | 4 (8) | 1 (2) | 5 (5) | 0.19 |
Response to owner approach | ||||
Indifference | 8 (17) | 2 (4) | 10 (10) | <0.05 |
Friendly | 32 (67) | 46 (88) | 78 (78) | <0.01 |
Avoidance | 5 (10) | 3 (6) | 8 (8) | 0.47 |
Aggression | 3 (6) | 1 (2) | 4 (4) | 0.34 |
Response to observer walking down side | ||||
Indifference | 16 (33) | 5 (10) | 21 (21) | <0.01 |
Friendly | 26 (54) | 38 (73) | 64 (64) | <0.05 |
Avoidance | 2 (4) | 6 (12) | 8 (8) | 0.27 |
Aggression | 4 (8) | 3 (6) | 7 (7) | 0.70 |
Response to owner walking down side | ||||
Indifference | 9 (19) | 2 (4) | 11 (11) | <0.05 |
Friendly | 32 (67) | 44 (85) | 76 (76) | <0.05 |
Avoidance | 3 (6) | 5 (10) | 8 (8) | 0.71 |
Aggression | 4 (8) | 1 (2) | 5 (5) | 0.19 |
Response to observer making chin contact | ||||
Acceptance | 36 (75) | 41 (79) | 77 (77) | 0.64 |
Avoidance | 12 (25) | 11 (21) | 23 (23) | 0.64 |
Response to owner making chin contact | ||||
Acceptance | 39 (81) | 43 (83) | 82 (82) | 0.85 |
Avoidance | 9 (19) | 9 (17) | 18 (18) | 0.85 |
Response to observer picking up a limb | ||||
Acceptance | 44 (92) | 49 (94) | 93 (93) | 0.70 |
Avoidance | 4 (8) | 3 (6) | 7 (7) | 0.70 |
Response to owner picking up a limb | ||||
Acceptance | 45 (94) | 50 (96) | 95 (95) | 0.66 |
Avoidance | 3 (6) | 2 (4) | 5 (5) | 0.66 |
Clusters | Metropolitana de Santiago Region | Araucania Region |
---|---|---|
cluster 1 | friend, animals, horses | son, horse, feeding |
cluster 2 | tools, animals, feed them | house, like, transport |
cluster 3 | hobby, toy, time | friend, rescuer, feeding |
cluster 4 | loyal, horse, feed them | food, tool, bread |
cluster 5 | feed them, like, pets | unique, understands, life |
cluster 6 | horse, feel, feed them | we eat, eat, source |
cluster 7 | tool, animal, livelihood | foods, provides, feeding |
cluster 8 | like, feed them, take care of them | friend, apart, horse |
cluster 9 | friend, favorite, home | source, plough, feeding |
© 2017 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Luna, D.; Vásquez, R.A.; Rojas, M.; Tadich, T.A. Welfare Status of Working Horses and Owners′ Perceptions of Their Animals. Animals 2017, 7, 56. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani7080056
Luna D, Vásquez RA, Rojas M, Tadich TA. Welfare Status of Working Horses and Owners′ Perceptions of Their Animals. Animals. 2017; 7(8):56. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani7080056
Chicago/Turabian StyleLuna, Daniela, Rodrigo A. Vásquez, Manuel Rojas, and Tamara A. Tadich. 2017. "Welfare Status of Working Horses and Owners′ Perceptions of Their Animals" Animals 7, no. 8: 56. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani7080056
APA StyleLuna, D., Vásquez, R. A., Rojas, M., & Tadich, T. A. (2017). Welfare Status of Working Horses and Owners′ Perceptions of Their Animals. Animals, 7(8), 56. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani7080056