Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T07:21:16.108Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The relationship between working horse welfare and their owners’ socioeconomic status

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 January 2023

R Lanas ,
D Luna  and
T Tadich
R Lanas
Affiliation:
Departamento de Fomento de la Producción Animal, Facultad de Ciencias Veterinarias y Pecuarias, Universidad de Chile, Santa Rosa 11735, La Pintana, Santiago, Chile
D Luna
Affiliation:
Programa Doctorado en Ciencias Silvoagropecuarias y Veterinarias, Universidad de Chile, Becario Conicyt N°21130091, Chile
T Tadich*
Affiliation:
Departamento de Fomento de la Producción Animal, Facultad de Ciencias Veterinarias y Pecuarias, Universidad de Chile, Santa Rosa 11735, La Pintana, Santiago, Chile
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: tamaratadich@u.uchile.cl
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.

The relationship between the socio-economic status of working equine owners and the welfare status of their animals is yet to be documented. The aim of this study was to provide an approach to understanding socio-economic status, quality of life and working aspects of working horse owners, in order to establish their social vulnerability index and to determine how these measures correlate with the welfare state of their horses. Seventy-two owners and their urban working horses (n = 122) were studied. Owners’ socioeconomic and educational status was established together with their quality of life perception and multi-dimensional poverty index. The animal welfare index was constructed using animal-based measures. Whilst over 90% of owners were considered vulnerable, only 28.3% of horses were classified as being in a poor welfare state (eg presence of lesions and morphology not adequate for draught type). There were no significant correlations between owners’ factors and the animal welfare index. We conclude, therefore, that social vulnerability of owners does not necessarily imply that their animals will be in a poor welfare state.

Keywords

animal welfarelivelihoodpovertyquality of lifesocio-economic statusworking horse
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 27 , Issue 1 , February 2018 , pp. 47 - 54
Copyright
© 2018 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Adimark 2000 El nivel socioeconómico Esomar: Manual de aplicación, Chile. http://www.microweb.cl/idm/documentos/ESOMAR.pdfGoogle Scholar
Alcaldía de Medellín 2009 Programa de Sustitución de Vehículos de tracción animal en la ciudad de Medellín. Secretaría del Medio Ambiente, Alcaldía de Medellín. http://www.eluniversal.com.co/sites/default/files/avances_2009_proyecto_cocheros_medellin.pdfGoogle Scholar
Ali, ABA, Matoock, MY, Fouad, MA and Heleski, CR 2015 Are mules or donkeys better adapted for Egyptian brick kiln work? (Until we change the kilns). Journal of Veterinary Behavior 10:158–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jveb.2014.12.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alkire, S and Santos, ME 2010 Acute multidimensional poverty: A new index for developing countries. OPHI Working Papers 38. University of Oxford: Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
Alkire, S and Santos, ME 2011 The multidimensional poverty index (MPI). Training material for producing national human development reports. http://www.ophi.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/MPI_Training Material_23Nov2011.pdfGoogle Scholar
Burn, CC, Dennison, TL and Whay, HR 2010 Relationship 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
Burn, CC, Pritchard, JC and Whay, HR 2009 Observer relia-bility for working equine welfare assessment: problems with high prevalences of certain results. Animal Welfare 18: 177–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cassai, G 1944 El caballo de Labranza. Revista El Campesino 96: 7–10Google Scholar
Chambers, R and Conway, GR 1991 Sustainable rural livelihoods: practical concepts for the 21st century. Institute of Development, Discussion Paper 296. http://www.ids.ac.uk/publication/sustain-able-rural-livelihoods-practical-concepts-for-the-21st-centuryGoogle Scholar
Chang, CR, Sapón, M and Rodríguez, D 2010 Economic valu-ation of the impact of the working equine in the Peten and Chimaltenango communities in Guatemala. Proceedings of the 6th International Colloquium on Working Equids. 29 November-2 December 2010, New Delhi, IndiaGoogle Scholar
Chile 2009 Fija texto refundido, coordinado y sistematizado de la Ley de Tránsito Nº18,290. Ministerio de Transporte y Telecomunicaciones, Subsecretaría de Transportes, Ministerio de Justicia, Subsecretaría de Justicia, Chile. [Title translation: Fixed revised, coordinated and systematised text of the Traffic Law]Google Scholar
Dawkins, MS 2004 Using behaviour to assess animal welfare. Animal Welfare 13: S3–S7Google Scholar
Dawkins, MS 2006 A user's guide to animal welfare science. TRENDS in Ecology and Evolution 21: 77–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2005.10.017Google ScholarPubMed
De Aluja, AS 1998 The welfare of working equids in Mexico. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 59: 19–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(98)00117-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Decreto Nº 595 2013 Decreto por medio del cual se culmina el pro-grama de sustitución de vehículos de tracción animal y se prohíbe defi-nitivamente su circulación en el Distrito Capital y se adoptan otras medidas, Bogotá, Colombia. [Title translation: Ordinance that ends the animal traction vehicles substitution and forbids their cir-culation within the capital district, Bogotá, Colombia]Google Scholar
Duncan, IJH and Fraser, D 1997 Understanding animal welfare. In: Appleby, MC and Hughes, BO (eds) Animal Welfare pp 19–31. CAB International: Wallingford, UKGoogle Scholar
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) 2009 The liveli-hood assessment tool-kit, Analysing and responding to the impact of disasters on the livelihoods of people. First Edition. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome and International Labour Organization (ILO), Geneva, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
FONDECYT 2016 The intricate link between livelihood and animal welfare: Identification of risk factors affecting the welfare of urban draught horses. Final report, FONDECYT Iniciación grant, National Science and Technology Commission, Santiago, ChileGoogle Scholar
Mburu, S, Zaibet, L, Fall, A and Ndiwa, N 2012 The role of working animals in the livelihoods of rural communities in West Africa. Livestock Research for Rural Development 24(9)Google Scholar
MINEDUC 2013 Medición de la deserción escolar en Chile. Serie Evidencias, Año 2 Nº15. Centro de estudios MINEDUC: Chile.[Title translation: Measurement of school dropout in Chile]Google Scholar
Pal, Y, Legha, RA, Dedar, RK and Bala, PA 2013 Socio-eco-nomic status of horse owners vis-à-vis horse feeding and manage-ment in Rajasthan. Veterinary World 6: 470–475. https://doi.org/10.5455/vetworld.2013.470-475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pearson, RA and Krecek, RC 2006 Delivery of health and hus-bandry improvements to working animals in Africa. Tropical Animal Health and Production 38: 93–101. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11250-006-4363-yGoogle Scholar
Phillips, CJC and Santurtun, E 2013 The welfare of livestock. The Veterinary Journal 196: 309–314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tvjl.2013.01.007CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pritchard, J 2014 What role do working equids play in human livelihoods, and how well is this currently recognised? Proceedings of the 7th International Colloquium on Working Equids. 1-3 July 2014, Royal Holloway, University of London, UKGoogle Scholar
Pritchard, JC, Burn, CC, Barr, ARS and Whay, HR 2008 Validity of indicators of dehydration in working horses: A longitu-dinal study of changes in skin tent duration, mucous membrane dryness and drinking behaviour. Equine Veterinary Journal 40: 558–564. https://doi.org/10.2746/042516408X297462CrossRefGoogle 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.prevet-med.2005.02.002CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Registro Civil e Identificación 2016 Primer boletín de información semestral 2016 de Servicio de Registro Civil e Identificación. Ministerio de Justicia y Derechos Humanos, Chile. https://www.registrocivil.cl/PortalOI/PDF/Boletin_Semestral_SRCeI_2016_Datos.pdf. [Title translation: First biannual information bulletin of the Civil Registry and Identification Service 2016]Google Scholar
Rushen, J 2003 Changing concepts of farm animal welfare: bridging the gap between applied and basic research. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 81: 199–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(02)00281-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rushen, J and de Passillé, AM 2010 The importance of good stockmanship and its benefits for the animals. In: Grandin, T (ed) Improving Animal Welfare a Practical Approach. CAB International, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
Saaty, TL 2008 Decision-making with the analytic hierarchy process. International Journal of Services Sciences 1: 83–98. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSSCI.2008.017590CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tadich, T, Escobar, A and Pearson, RA 2008 Husbandry and welfare aspects of urban draught horses in the south of Chile. Archivos de Medicina Veterinaria 40: 267–273. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0301-732X2008000300007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tadich, TA and Stuardo-Escobar, LH 2014 Strategies for improving the welfare of working equids in the Americas: a Chilean example. Revue Scientifique et Technique (International Office of Epizootics) 33: 203–211. https://doi.org/10.20506/rst.33.1.2271Google ScholarPubMed
Upjohn, MM, Pfeiffer, DU and Verheyen, KLP 2014 Helping working equidae and their owners in developing countries: mon-itoring and evaluation of evidence-based interventions. The Veterinary Journal 199: 210–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tvjl.2013.09.065CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waran, N and Randle, H 2017 What we can measure, we can manage: The importance of using robust welfare indicators in equitation science. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 190: 74–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2017.02.016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wemelsfelder, F 1997 The scientific validity of subjective con-cepts in models of animal welfare. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 53: 75–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(96)01152-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
WHOQOL-Bref 1996 Introduction, Administration, Scoring and Generic Version of the Assessment. Programme on Mental Health, World Health Organization, Geneva, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
Zaman, S, Kumar, A and Compston, P 2014 Contribution of working equids to the livelihoods of their owners in Uttar Pradesh, India. Proceedings of the 7th International Colloquium on Working Equids. 1-3 July 2014, Royal Holloway, University of London, UKGoogle Scholar