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

What Is a Working Equid? Analysis of Current Terminology and a Suggested Definition

Equids are engaged in myriad types of work across the world, with contexts and industries varying widely between high-, middle- and low-income countries as classified by the World Bank. Through a comprehensive abstract search and literature review, we examined the usage and context of terms associated with working equids in high-income countries (HICs), upper-middle-income countries (UMICs), lower-middle-income countries (LMICs), and low-income countries (LICs). Analysis showed that the search term used was significantly associated with World Bank country income classification. All search terms except two returned a significantly higher number of papers for higher-income countries compared to lower-income countries. The two exceptions were "working equid" and "draft equid", which returned significantly more papers for lower-income countries than higher-income countries. Both terms also returned papers from high-income and upper-middle-income countries, but these were always in the context of low-resource settings and rural or marginalised communities, of which we provide examples in the discussion. We propose that the term "working equid" should be used to describe "any equid engaged in physical labour that provides a significant or direct contribution to the economic livelihood, sustenance or support of the owner/user's family, typically within a low resource setting". Our review highlights the intricate interplay between socioeconomic factors and examines how equids are described in the literature. The lack of a universally accepted definition leads to challenges in policy formulation, resource allocation, and welfare standards development, particularly in LMICs and LICs where working equids are crucial to livelihoods. This study underscores the need for a more inclusive and comprehensive approach to terminology, advocating for future research to bridge linguistic and cultural gaps in understanding working equids globally. Such efforts are vital for equitable and effective welfare standards and policy development for these animals.

Putting the cart before the horse: mixed-methods participatory investigation of working equid harnessing practices in three selected towns of the Oromia national regional state in Ethiopia

BACKGROUND

Millions of working equids provide socio-economic support for many low-income communities worldwide. With the prevalence of harness-related wounds reported as higher than 60%, this study aims to describe the equipment used by working equids in three locations of the Ethiopian national regional state of Oromia (Fiche, Bishoftu and Shashamene), and the attitudes and practices of equid owners, users and harness makers regarding work equipment. This mixed-methods study consists of cross-sectional surveying of working equids used for taxi or transport of goods or water, as well as cart-driver questionnaires and focus groups (FG) with working equid stakeholders. Activities conducted with FG included participatory ranking of equipment attributes and equipment drawing exercises. Indicators of equipment design and assembly, as well as cart-driver attitudes and practices were described quantitatively. Associations between equipment characteristics and species, work-type and cart-driver indicators were investigated through univariable logistic regression models, whereas focus group discussions were transcribed and analysed thematically.

RESULTS

In total, 368 working equid surveys and cart-driver questionnaires were completed and 87 participants took part in nine FG. Equipment composition and characteristics differed considerably from ideal animal draught and harnessing principles described in the literature, with none of the observed harnesses adhering to all principles and thus not considered fully adequate. Various harness compositions were used, with only saddles and breast collars present in all. Donkey equipment had fewer components than that of horses, such as swingle trees (OR 0.02; 95% CI 0.01-0.06; p < 0.001) or girths (OR 0.09; 95%CI 0.02-0.4; p = 0.002). Horse equipment was more likely to have functional elements such as breeching (OR 7.8; 95% CI 2.9-20.9; p < 0.001). Of all equipment attributes, FG participants ranked cost, design and impact on animal wellbeing as having the highest importance. Thematic analysis identified motivations and priorities regarding equipment; awareness and knowledge of design and function; barriers to using ideal equipment; and consequences of equipment design and practices as key themes.

CONCLUSIONS

Various weaknesses of design, assembly and use of equid work equipment were identified. Promoting behavioural change through awareness and training could lead to a sustainable improvement of work equipment quality, access, and prevention of equipment-related problems.

Recognition of emotion and pain by owners benefits the welfare of donkeys in a challenging working environment

Working donkeys (Equus asinus) support human living standards globally. However, there is little information on the effect of human perceptions of emotion and pain on the welfare of working donkeys. We interviewed donkey owners (n = 332) in Pakistan to determine the relationship between human perspectives on donkey sentience: emotions and the ability to feel pain, and the routine working practices that could impact donkey welfare. The majority of donkey owners used padding under the saddle (n = 211; 63.6%; 95% CI (58.3%-68.9%)) and provided access to food (n = 213; 64.2%; 95% CI (58.9%-69.3%)) and water (n = 195; 58.7%; 95% CI (53.4%-64.1%)) during the working day. Owners reported that at some point in their donkey's life, 65.3% (95% CI (60.2%-70.5%)) had load-associated injuries, of which 27.7% (n = 92; 95% CI (22.8%-32.5%)) were wounds, 20.5% (n = 68; 95% CI (16.1%-24.8%)) were lameness and 7.2% (n = 24; 95% CI 4.4%-10.0%) were back pain. In total, 81.3% (95% CI 77.1%-85.5%; n = 270) of owners believed that their donkeys felt pain, and 70.2% (95% CI (65.2%-75.1%; n = 233) of owners believed that their donkeys had emotions. Multiple correspondence analysis (MCA) was used to understand the relationship between owners' recognition of emotions and pain in donkeys and their working practices. The MCA factor map revealed two clusters, named positive and negative clusters. The positive cluster included owner's recognition of donkey pain and emotions, the availability of food and water, use of padding under the saddle, absence of injuries along with the willingness to follow loading guidelines. The negative cluster represented practices that did not benefit donkey welfare, such as using saddles without padding and a lack of food and water during work. The presence of injuries, owners not recognizing that donkeys feel pain and emotion along with an unwillingness to follow loading guidelines were also found in the negative cluster. We show that the owners who recognized sentience in their donkeys were more likely to use practices that are good for donkey welfare. The ability of owners to identify sentience in donkeys, along with their willingness to follow welfare guidelines, are important factors in improving the lives of working donkeys.

Welfare Concerns for Mounted Load Carrying by Working Donkeys in Pakistan

Working donkeys (Equus asinus) are vital to people's livelihoods. They are essential for carrying goods, however, globally, overloading is one of the primary welfare concerns for working donkeys. We studied mounted load carrying by donkeys and associated factors in Pakistan. A cross-sectional study of donkey owners (n = 332) was conducted, and interviews were undertaken based on a questionnaire. Owners estimated that the median weight of their donkeys was 110 kg [interquartile range (IQR) 100–120 kg], and that they carried a median mounted load of 81.5 kg (IQR 63–99 kg). We found that 87.4% of donkeys carried a load above 50% of their bodyweight ratio (BWR), the median BWR carried was 77.1% (IQR 54.5–90.7%), and 25.3% of donkeys carried above 90% BWR. Donkeys that were loaded at more than 50% BWR were more likely to adopt sternal recumbency compared to donkeys loaded with less weight (P = 0.01). Donkeys carrying construction material were more likely to carry more than the median BWR, when compared to domestic loads (P < 0.001). Younger donkeys aged between one and 5 years carried more than the median BWR compared to those aged over 15 years (P = 0.03). For the models with donkeys carrying median BWR and above 90% BWR, those working in peri-urban and urban areas were more likely to carry a greater BWR than donkeys working in rural areas (P < 0.001; P < 0.001, respectively). For donkeys carrying more than 90% BWR, mixed breed donkeys carried higher loads compared to other breeds of donkeys (P < 0.001). Overloading based on current recommendations (50% BWR) was common, with the majority (87.4%) of donkeys reported to carry more than the recommended 50% limit. This survey provides evidence of on-the-ground working practices and factors associated with mounted load carrying, which is critical for developing evidence-based recommendations for loading, in order to improve the welfare of working donkeys.