Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T10:55:39.889Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of management practices on the welfare of dairy donkeys and risk factors associated with signs of hoof neglect

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 November 2017

Francesca Dai ,
Giulia Segati ,
Marta Brscic ,
Matteo Chincarini ,
Emanuela Dalla Costa ,
Lorenzo Ferrari ,
Faith Burden ,
Andrew Judge  and
Michela Minero
Francesca Dai*
Affiliation:
Dipartimento di Medicina Veterinaria, Università degli Studi di Milano, 20133 Milano, Italy
Giulia Segati
Affiliation:
Dipartimento di Medicina Veterinaria, Università degli Studi di Milano, 20133 Milano, Italy
Marta Brscic
Affiliation:
Dipartimento di Medicina Animale, Produzioni e Salute, Università degli Studi di Padova, 35020 Legnaro, Italy
Matteo Chincarini
Affiliation:
Facoltà di Medicina Veterinaria, Università degli Studi di Teramo, 64100 Teramo, Italy
Emanuela Dalla Costa
Affiliation:
Dipartimento di Medicina Veterinaria, Università degli Studi di Milano, 20133 Milano, Italy
Lorenzo Ferrari
Affiliation:
Dipartimento di Medicina Veterinaria, Università degli Studi di Milano, 20133 Milano, Italy
Faith Burden
Affiliation:
The Donkey Sanctuary, Sidmouth, Devon, EX10 0NU, UK
Andrew Judge
Affiliation:
The Donkey Sanctuary, Sidmouth, Devon, EX10 0NU, UK
Michela Minero
Affiliation:
Dipartimento di Medicina Veterinaria, Università degli Studi di Milano, 20133 Milano, Italy
*
*For correspondence; e-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This Research Paper aimed to investigate donkey welfare in dairy husbandry systems and to identify the potential factors affecting it at animal level. In 2015, twelve dairy donkey farms (19–170 donkeys per farm, mean = 55 ± 48), distributed throughout Italy, were visited. On each farm, the Animal Welfare Indicators (AWIN) welfare assessment protocol for donkeys was used by two trained assessors to evaluate the welfare of animals for a total of 257 donkeys assessed. The protocol includes animal-based indicators that were entered in a digitalised system. Prevalence of different scores at individual, farm and category level were calculated. Farmers were asked to fill out a questionnaire including information regarding the management of donkeys and their final destination. Answers to the questionnaire were then considered as effects in the risk factor analysis whereas the scores of the animal-based indicators were considered as response variables. Most of the donkeys (80·2%) enjoyed a good nutritional status (BCS = 3). 18·7% of donkeys showed signs of hoof neglect such as overgrowth and/or incorrect trimming (Min = 0% Max = 54·5%). Belonging to a given farm or production group influenced many of the welfare indicators. The absence of pasture affected the likelihood of having skin lesions, alopecia, low BCS scores and a less positive emotional state. Lack of routine veterinary visits (P < 0·001) and having neglected hooves (P < 0·001) affected the likelihood of being thin (BCS < 3). Belonging to specific production groups, lack of access to pasture and showing an avoidance reaction to an approaching human (AD) resulted in risk factors associated with a higher prevalence of signs of hoof neglect. Our results support the idea that lack of knowledge of proper donkey care among owners was behind many welfare issues found.

Keywords

Animal welfaredonkeymanagementmilk
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Dairy Research , Volume 85 , Issue 1 , February 2018 , pp. 30 - 38
Copyright
Copyright © Hannah Dairy Research Foundation 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aida, H & Dehghani, SN 2012 Hoof morphometry before and after trimming in donkeys. Research Opinions in Animal & Veterinary Sciences 2 381–383 Google Scholar
AWIN 2015 AWIN welfare assessment protocol for donkeys. doi:10.13130/AWIN_DONKEYS_2015 Google Scholar
Boersema, JSC, Noordhuizen, JPTM & Lievaart, JJ 2013 Hazard perception of Dutch farmers and veterinarians related to dairy young stock rearing. Journal of Dairy Science 96 5027–5034 Google Scholar
Brscic, M, Leruste, H, Heutinck, LFM, Bokkers, EAM, Wolthuis-Fillerup, M, Stockhofe, N, Gottardo, F, Lensink, BJ, Cozzi, G & Van Reenen, CG 2012 Prevalence of respiratory disorders in veal calves and potential risk factors. Journal of Dairy Science 95 2753–2764 Google Scholar
Burden, F 2011 Practical feeding and condition scoring for donkeys and mules. Equine Veterinary Education 24 589–596 Google Scholar
Carroccio, A, Cavataio, F, Montalto, G, D'Amico, D, Alabrese, L & Iacono, G 2000 Intolerance to hydrolysed cow's milk proteins in infants: clinical characteristics and dietary treatment. Clinical and Experimental Allergy 30 1597–1603 Google Scholar
Corbett, CJ, Love, S, Moore, A, Burden, F, Matthews, JB & Denwood, MJ 2014 The effectiveness of faecal removal methods of pasture management to control the cyathostomin burden of donkeys. Parasites & Vectors 7 48 Google Scholar
Cox, R, Proudman, CJ, Trawford, AF, Burden, F & Pinchbeck, GL 2007 Epidemiology of impaction colic in donkeys in the UK. BMC Veterinary Research 3 1 Google Scholar
Crane, M 2008 The donkey's foot. In The Professional Handbook of the Donkey, pp. 188–201 (Eds. Svendsen, ED, Duncan, J & Hadrill, D). Yatesbury, Wiltshire, UK: Whitted Books Google Scholar
Dai, F, Dalla Costa, E, Battini, M, Barbieri, S, Minero, M, Mattiello, S & Canali, E 2014 An innovative tool for on-farm data collection and information sharing. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on the Assessment of Animal Welfare at Farm and Group Level, p. 153 (Eds. Mounier, L & Veissier, I), Wageningen, The Netherlands: Wageningen Academic Publishers Google Scholar
Dai, F, Dalla Costa, E, Murray, LMA, Canali, E & Minero, M 2016 Welfare conditions of donkeys in Europe: initial outcomes from On-farm assessment. Animals 6 5 Google Scholar
Dai, F, Segati, G, Dalla Costa, E, Burden, F, Judge, A & Minero, M 2017 Management practices and milk production in dairy donkey farms distributed over the Italian territory. Macedonian Veterinary Review 40 i-vi CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalla Costa, E, Murray, LAM, Dai, F, Canali, E & Minero, M 2014 Equine on-farm welfare assessment: a review of animal-based indicators. Animal Welfare 23 323–341 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalla Costa, E, Dai, F, Murray, LAM, Guazzetti, S, Canali, E & Minero, M 2015 A study on validity and reliability of on-farm tests to measure human–animal relationship in horses and donkeys. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 163 110–121 Google Scholar
Duffield, H 2008 Colic. In The Professional Handbook of the Donkey, pp. 37–51 (Eds. Svendsen, ED, Duncan, J & Hadrill, D). Yatesbury, Wiltshire, UK: Whitted Books Google Scholar
Dwyer, CM 2009 Welfare of sheep: providing for welfare in an extensive environment. Small Ruminant Research 86 14–21 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faostat 2015 faostat.fao.org Google Scholar
Faramarzi, B, Thomason, JJ & Sears, WC 2009 Changes in growth of the hoof wall and hoof morphology in response to regular periods of trotting exercise in standardbreds. American Journal of Veterinary Research 70 1354–1364 Google Scholar
Goddard, P, Waterhouse, T, Dwyer, C & Stott, A 2006 The perception of the welfare of sheep in extensive systems. Small Ruminant Research 62 215–225 Google Scholar
Goddard, PJ 2013 Small ruminant welfare: levelling the playing field or raising the bar-A European perspective. Small Ruminant Research 110 108–111 Google Scholar
Górecka-Bruzda, A, Jaworski, Z, Suwała, M, Sobczyńska, M, Jastrzębska, E, Ogłuszka, M, Sankeyc, , Marlena Boroń, C & Jezierski, T 2017 Aversiveness of husbandry procedures for pre-weaned foals: acomparison using behavioural and physiological indices. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 191 31–38 Google Scholar
Grosso, L, Battini, M, Wemelsfelder, F, Barbieri, S, Minero, M, Dalla Costa, E & Mattiello, S 2016 On-farm qualitative behaviour assessment of dairy goats in different housing conditions. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 180 51–57 Google Scholar
Iacono, G, Carrocio, A, Cavataio, F, Montalto, G, Soresi, M & Balsamo, V 1992 Use of Ass milk in multiple food allergy. Journal of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition 14 177–181 Google Scholar
Ivemeyera, S, Pisani, M & Knierim, U 2015 Short-term ante-calving handling of dairy heifers in relation to heifers’ behaviour and udder health after parturition. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 171 33–38 Google Scholar
Klingel, H 1998 Observations on social organization and behaviour of African and Asiatic wild asses (equus africanus and equus hemionus). Applied Animal Behaviour Science 60 103–113 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mekuria, S & Abebe, R 2010 Observation on major welfare problems of equine in Meskan district, Southern Ethiopia. Livestock Research for Rural Development 22 48 Google Scholar
Minero, M, Dalla Costa, E, Dai, F, Murray, LAM, Canali, E & Wemelsfelder, F 2016 Use of qualitative behaviour assessment as an indicator of welfare in donkeys. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 174 147–153 Google Scholar
Moehlman, P 1998 Feral asses (equus africanus): intraspecific variation in social organization in arid and mesic habitats. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 60 171–195 Google Scholar
Pritchard, JC, Lindberg, AC, Main, DCJ & Whay, HR 2005 Assessment of the welfare of working horses, mules and donkeys, using health and behaviour parameters. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 69 265–283 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Proops, L, Burden, F & Osthaus, B 2012 Social relations in a mixed group of mules, ponies and donkeys reflect differences in equid type. Behavioural Processes 90 337–342 Google Scholar
Sevi, A, Casamassima, D, Pulina, G & Pazzona, A 2010 Factors of welfare reduction in dairy sheep and goats. Italian Journal of Animal Science 8 81–101 Google Scholar
Seyoum, Z, Tesfaye, M & Derso, S 2015 Prevalence, intensity and risk factors of infestation with major gastrointestinal nematodes in equines in and around Shashemane, Southern Ethiopia. Tropical Animal Health and Production 47 1515–1521 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, D & Wood, S 2008 Donkey nutrition. In The Professional Handbook of the Donkey, pp. 10–27 (Eds. Svendsen, ED, Duncan, J & Hadrill, D). Yatesbury, Wiltshire, UK: Whittet Books Google Scholar
Sutherland, MA & Dowling, SK 2014 The relationship between responsiveness of first-lactation heifers to humans and the behavioral response to milking and milk production measures. Journal of Veterinary Behavior 9 30–33 Google Scholar
Thomason, JJ 1998 Variation in surface strain on the equine hoof wall at the mid step with shoeing, gait, substrate, direction of travel, and hoof shape. Equine Veterinary Journal Supplement 26 86–95 Google Scholar
Trawford, AF & Mulugeta, G 2008 Parasites. In The Professional Handbook of the Donkey, pp. 82–110 (Eds. Svendsen, ED, Duncan, J & Hadrill, D). Yaresbury, Wilshire, UK: Whitted Books Google Scholar
van de Mortel, T 2008 Faking it: social desirability response bias in self-report research. Australian Journal of Advanced Nursing 25 40–48 Google Scholar
Vincenzetti, S, Polidori, P, Mariani, P, Cammertoni, N, Fantuz, F & Vita, A 2008 Donkey's milk protein fractions characterization. Food Chemistry 106 640–649 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Welfare Quality® 2009 Welfare Quality® Assessment Protocol for Cattle. Lelystad, the Netherlands: Welfare Quality® Consortium Google Scholar
Wemelsfelder, F 2007 How animals communicate quality of life: the qualitative assessment of behaviour. Animal Welfare 16 25–31.Google Scholar
World Horse Welfare, Eurogroup for Animals 2015 Removing the Blinkers: The Health and Welfare of European Equidae in 2015Google Scholar
Wubie, A & Getaneh, G 2015 Study on prevalence and intensity of strongyle nematode infections in working donkeys in and around adet town, yilmana denssa woreda, Ethiopia. World Journal of Pharmaceutical Research 4 480–494 Google Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Dai et al supplementary material 1

Dai et al supplementary material

Download Dai et al supplementary material 1(PDF)
PDF 462.9 KB