Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-04T11:44:06.508Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Welfare Assessment of Working Donkeys: Assessment of the Impact of an Animal Healthcare Project in West Kenya

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

C Leeb ,
C Henstridge ,
K Dewhurst  and
K Bazeley
C Leeb*
Affiliation:
University of Bristol, Department of Clinical Veterinary Sciences, Division of Farm Animal Sciences, Langford BS40 5DU, UK
C Henstridge
Affiliation:
University of Bristol, Department of Clinical Veterinary Sciences, Division of Farm Animal Sciences, Langford BS40 5DU, UK
K Dewhurst
Affiliation:
University of Bristol, Department of Clinical Veterinary Sciences, Division of Farm Animal Sciences, Langford BS40 5DU, UK
K Bazeley
Affiliation:
University of Bristol, Department of Clinical Veterinary Sciences, Division of Farm Animal Sciences, Langford BS40 5DU, UK
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: ch.leeb@gmx.at
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Development agencies and animal welfare charities try to improve the health and welfare of livestock in the developing world by educating owners and providing healthcare. The impact assessment of these projects relies mainly upon input-related parameters (eg number of animals treated or educational lectures delivered). The aim of this study was to investigate whether animal-based parameters, such as scores for skin lesions, body condition and lameness, could be used to assess the impact of interventions by development agencies on working donkeys. A general checklist for integument assessment of livestock, developed and then tested on two British farms, was redefined for assessment of equine animals in West Kenya. In total, 346 donkeys were assessed over four days with a mobile clinic of the Kenyan Society for the Protection and Care of Animals, using 25 animal-based parameters. The checklist was easy to use: the parameters could be scored using visual assessment or palpation, and the procedure was completed in approximately 5 min per animal. The method was found to be acceptable for owners and animal health technicians, and no special equipment was required. Significant observations included a reduced frequency of leg lesions when head-tethering (as opposed to leg-tethering) was used, and a reduced frequency of foot lesions in regions previously visited by the charity. This animal-based method proved that the charity had made a positive impact on donkey welfare through owner education.

Keywords

animal welfaredevelopment interventiondonkeyimpact assessment
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 12 , Issue 4: Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on the Assessment of Animal Welfare at Farm and Group Level , November 2003 , pp. 689 - 694
Copyright
© 2003 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

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

Bazeley, K, Grace, D, Leeb, C, Tanner, J and Nicol, C 2001 Human development and animal welfare. Unpublished Report, University of Bristol and Livestock in Development, Department for International Development, UKGoogle Scholar
Ekesbo, I 1984 Methods for evaluation of environmental influences on animal health. Wiener Tieraerzliche Monatsschrift 71(6-7): 186–190 (in German)Google Scholar
Gloor, P and Dolf, C 1985 Galtsauenhaltung einzeln oder in Gruppen? FAT-Series No 24: Tänikon, Switzerland [Title translation: Housing of pregnant sows individually or in groups?]Google Scholar
Koning R de 1985 On the well being of dry sows. PhD Thesis, University of Utrecht, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Leeb, B, Leeb, C, Troxler, J and Schuh, M 2001 Skin lesions and callosities in group-housed pregnant sows: animal related welfare indicators. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica (Section A — Animal Science) 30: 82–87 (Suppl)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Troxler, J 1998 Testing of housing systems. In: Van den Weghe, S (ed) Assessment of Housing Systems. Kuratorium für Technik und Bauwesen in der Landwirtschaft, KTBL 377 pp 51–54. KTBL: Darmstadt, Germany (In German)Google Scholar
Whay, H R, Main, D C J, Green, L E and Webster, A J F 2003 Animal-based measures for the assessment of welfare state of dairy cattle, pigs and laying hens: consensus of expert opinion. Animal Welfare 12: 205–217Google Scholar