Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T19:07:43.022Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Repeatability of a skin tent test for dehydration in working horses and donkeys

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

JC Pritchard ,
ARS Barr  and
HR Whay
JC Pritchard*
Affiliation:
Department of Clinical Veterinary Science, University of Bristol, Langford House, BS40 5DU, UK Brooke Hospital for Animals, Broadmead House, 21 Panton St, London SW1Y 4DR, UK
ARS Barr
Affiliation:
Department of Clinical Veterinary Science, University of Bristol, Langford House, BS40 5DU, UK
HR Whay
Affiliation:
Department of Clinical Veterinary Science, University of Bristol, Langford House, BS40 5DU, UK
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: [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.

Dehydration is a serious welfare issue for equines working in developing countries. Risk factors such as high ambient temperature, heavy workload and poor water availability are exacerbated by the traditional belief that provision of water to working animals will reduce their strength or cause colic and muscle cramps.

As part of the welfare assessment of 4889 working horses and donkeys during 2002/3, eight observers were trained to perform a standardised skin tent test. The prevalence of a prolonged duration of skin tenting was 50% in horses and 37% in donkeys. Two studies investigated inter-observer repeatability of skin tent test techniques, using a total of 220 horses and donkeys in India and then Egypt: measures of agreement with a ‘gold standard’ observer varied from 40 to 99%. Simplifying the test by reducing the number of possible scores for skin tent from three (immediate return of skin to normal position; delayed return up to three seconds; delayed return more than three seconds) to two (immediate return of skin to normal position; delayed return of any duration) did not improve overall repeatability of the skin tent test. Potential reasons for not achieving high levels of agreement include variations in assessment method, assessors' previous experience, subjective demarcation between score categories and biological variability.

Keywords

animal welfaredehydrationdonkeyhorserepeatabilityskin tent
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 16 , Issue 2: Special Issue: Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on the Assessment of Animal Welfare at Farm and Group Level , May 2007 , pp. 181 - 183
Copyright
© 2007 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Fuller, CJ, Bladon, BM, Driver, AJ and Barr, ARS 2006 The intra- and inter-assessor reliability of measurement of functional outcome by lameness scoring in horses. The Veterinary Journal 171: 281–286CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Main, DCJ, Clegg, J, Spatz, A and Green, LE 2000 Repeatability of a lameness scoring system for finishing pigs. Veterinary Record 147: 574–576CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, SW, Meek, AH and Willeberg, P 1987 Measurement of disease frequency and production. In: Veterinary Epidemiology. Principles and Methods. Iowa State University Press: Ames, Iowa, USAGoogle Scholar
Petrie, A and Watson, P 1999. The kappa measure of agreement for a categorical variable. In: Statistics for Veterinary and Animal Science. Blackwell Science Ltd: Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
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: 265–283CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed