These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Comparison of working equid welfare across three regions of Mexico.
    Author: Haddy E, Burden F, Prado-Ortiz O, Zappi H, Raw Z, Proops L.
    Journal: Equine Vet J; 2021 Jul; 53(4):763-770. PubMed ID: 32920907.
    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.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]