Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-16T11:19:37.572Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparison of the socio-economic value and welfare of working donkeys in rural and urban Ethiopia

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

M Geiger ,
J Hockenhull ,
H Buller ,
M Jemal Kedir ,
G Tefera Engida ,
M Getachew ,
FA Burden  and
HR Whay
M Geiger*
Affiliation:
Animal Welfare and Behaviour, Bristol Veterinary School, University of Bristol, Langford, Bristol BS40 5DU, UK Firoz Lalji Institute for Africa, London School of Economics and Political Science, London WC2A 2AE, UK
J Hockenhull
Affiliation:
Animal Welfare and Behaviour, Bristol Veterinary School, University of Bristol, Langford, Bristol BS40 5DU, UK
H Buller
Affiliation:
Department of Geography, College of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Exeter, Prince of Wales Road, Exeter EX4 4SB, UK
M Jemal Kedir
Affiliation:
Eshet Children and Youth Development Organization, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
G Tefera Engida
Affiliation:
College of Veterinary Medicine, Addis Ababa University, PO Box 34, Bishoftu, Ethiopia
M Getachew
Affiliation:
The Donkey Sanctuary, Slade House Farm, Sidmouth, Devon EX10 0NU, UK
FA Burden
Affiliation:
The Donkey Sanctuary, Slade House Farm, Sidmouth, Devon EX10 0NU, UK
HR Whay
Affiliation:
Animal Welfare and Behaviour, Bristol Veterinary School, University of Bristol, Langford, Bristol BS40 5DU, UK Office of the Vice President International, The National University of Ireland Galway, Galway, Ireland H91 TK33
*
* Contact for correspondence: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Donkeys (Equus asinus) are widely used throughout Ethiopia and play essential roles in a variety of everyday and income-generating tasks for the people that use them. The challenges faced by people and their working equids vary across communities and geographic locations. This may have implications for how donkeys are perceived by the people they work for, the roles they fulfil and ultimately their welfare. Two complementary methodological approaches were used in this study to explore the socio-economic value of donkeys for their owners and the welfare of the donkeys in rural and urban Ethiopia. Using a questionnaire, donkey owners were asked about their donkeys, their attitudes and beliefs related to donkey use and ownership, and the role donkeys played in their lives. Animal-based welfare assessments were also conducted on a sample of donkeys from different locations, with the overarching aim of the study to investigate differences in use, beliefs, and donkey welfare between rural and urban locations. In both rural and urban locations, working donkeys are critical for their owners’ income-generating activity and therefore their livelihoods. The work they undertake differs substantially between locations, as does their welfare. Work in each setting presents its own challenges and these are reflected in the behaviour and physical health of the donkeys. Rural donkeys showed more apathetic behaviour, a higher ectoparasite burden and greater evidence of tethering/hobbling. Urban donkeys were more alert and had a wider range of body condition scores. The findings highlight marked differences in the role and welfare of donkeys between different areas within the same country, demonstrating the importance of understanding the context, both from the perspective of humans and working equids, prior to staging interventions intended to benefit either party.

Keywords

animal welfareattitudesbehaviourdonkeyquestionnaireworking equids
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 30 , Issue 3 , August 2021 , pp. 269 - 277
Copyright
© 2021 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Burn, CC, Dennison, T and Whay, HR 2010a Environmental and demographic risk factors for poor welfare in working horses, donkeys and mules in developing countries. The Veterinary Journal 186: 385–392. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tvjl.2009.09.016CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Burn, CC, Dennison, TL and Whay, HR 2010b Relationships between behaviour and health in working horses, donkeys, and mules in developing countries. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 126: 109–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2010.06.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fröhlich, N, Sells, PD, Sommerville, R, Bolwell, CF, Cantley, C, Martin, JE, Gordon, SJG and Coombs, T 2020 Welfare assessment and husbandry practices of working horses in Fiji. Animals 10: 392. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10030392CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Geiger, M, Hockenhull, J, Buller, H, Tefera Engida, G, Getachew, M, Burden, FA and Whay, HR 2020 Understanding the attitudes of communities to the social, economic, and cultural importance of working donkeys in rural, peri-urban, and urban areas of Ethiopia. Frontiers in Veterinary Science 7: 60. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2020.00060CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haddy, E, Rodrigues, JB, Raw, Z, Burden, F and Proops, L 2020 Documenting the welfare and role of working equids in rural communities of Portugal and Spain. Animals 10: 790. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10050790CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kubasiewicz, LM, Rodrigues, JB, Norris, SL, Tamlin, L, Watson, TL, Rickards, K, Bell, N, Judge, A, Raw, Z and Burden, FA 2020 The welfare aggregation and guidance (WAG) tool: A new method to summarise global welfare assessment data for equids. Animals 10: 546. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10040546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lanas, R, Luna, D and Tadich, T 2018 The relationship between working horse welfare and their owners’ socioeconomic status. Animal Welfare 27: 47–54. https://doi.org/10.7120/09627286.27.1.047CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luna, D and Tadich, TA 2019 Why should human-animal interactions be included in research of working equids’ welfare? Animals 9: 42. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani9020042CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Martin Curran, M, Feseha, G and Smith, DG 2005 The impact of access to animal health services on donkey health and liveli-hoods in Ethiopia. Tropical Animal Health and Production 37(S1): 47–65. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11250-005-9008-zCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mekuria, S and Abebe, R 2010 Observation on major welfare problems of equine in Meskan district, Southern Ethiopia. Livestock Research for Rural Development 22(3): 1–15Google Scholar
Morgan, R 2006 The epidemiology of lameness in working don-keys in Addis Ababa and the Central Oromia region of Ethiopia: a comparative study of urban and rural donkey populations. In: Pearson, A, Muir, C and Farrow, M (eds) The Future for Working Equines: Proceedings of the 5th International Colloquium on Working Equines pp 99–106. The Donkey Sanctuary: Sidmouth, UKGoogle Scholar
Norris, S, Kubasiewicz, LM, Watson, TL, Little, HA, Yadav, AK, Thapa, S, Raw, Z and Burden, FA 2020 A new framework for assessing equid welfare: A case study of working equids in Nepalese brick kilns. Animals 10: 1074. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10061074CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Popescu, S and Diugan, EA 2013 The relationship between behavioral and other welfare indicators of working horses. Journal of Equine Veterinary Science 33: 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jevs.2012.04.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Popescu, S, Diugan, EA and Spinu, M 2014 The interrelations of good welfare indicators assessed in working horses and their relationships with the type of work. Research in Veterinary Science 96: 406–414. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rvsc.2013.12.014CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pritchard, J, Upjohn, M and Hirson, T 2018 Improving working equine welfare in ‘hard-win’ situations, where gains are difficult, expensive or marginal. PLoS One 13: e0191950. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0191950CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pritchard, JC, Lindberg, AC, Main, DCJ and Whay, HR 2005 Assessment of the welfare of working horses, mules and donkeys, using health and behaviour parameters. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 69: 265–283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2005.02.002CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Raw, Z, Rodrigues, JB, Rickards, K, Ryding, J, Norris, SL, Judge, A, Kubasiewicz, LM, Watson, TL, Little, H, Hart, B, Sullivan, R, Garrett, C and Burden, FA 2020 Equid assessment, research and scoping (EARS): The development and implementation of a new equid welfare assessment and monitoring tool. Animals 10(2): 297. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10020297CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stringer, AP, Bell, CE, Christley, RM, Gebreab, F, Tefera, G, Reed, K, Trawford, A and Pinchbeck, GL 2011 A cluster-ran-domised controlled trial to compare the effectiveness of different knowledge-transfer interventions for rural working equid users in Ethiopia. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 100: 90–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2011.02.001CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Upjohn, MM, Pfeiffer, DU and Verheyen, KLP 2014 Helping working equidae and their owners in developing countries: Monitoring and evaluation of evidence-based interventions. The Veterinary Journal 199: 210–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tvjl.2013.09.065CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Upjohn, MM, Shipton, K, Pferiffer, DU, Lerotholi, T, Attwood, G and Verheyen, KLP 2012 Cross-sectional survey of owner knowledge and husbandry practices, tack and health issues affecting working horses in Lesotho. Equine Veterinary Journal 44: 310–318. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2042-3306.2011.00442.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Usman, S, Disassa, H, Kabeta, T, Zenebe, T and Kebede, G 2015 Health and welfare related assessment of working equine in and around Batu Town, East Shoa, Central Ethiopia. Nature and Science 13(10): 1–8Google Scholar
Watson, TL, Kubasiewicz, LM, Chamberlain, N, Nye, C, Raw, Z and Burden, FA 2020 Cultural ‘blind spots’, social influence and the welfare of working donkeys in brick kilns in Northern India. Frontiers in Veterinary Science 7: 214. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2020.00214CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Supplementary material: File

Geiger et al. supplementary material
Download undefined(File)
File 114.2 KB
Supplementary material: File

Geiger et al. supplementary material
Download undefined(File)
File 89 KB
Supplementary material: File

Geiger et al. supplementary material
Download undefined(File)
File 72.1 KB