Preventive Veterinary Medicine 69 (2005) 265283

www.elsevier.com/locate/prevetmed

Assessment of the welfare of working horses,

mules and donkeys, using health
and behaviour parameters
J.C. Pritchard a,b,*, A.C. Lindberg a, D.C.J. Main a, H.R. Whay a
a

Department of Clinical Veterinary Science, University of Bristol, Langford, Bristol BS40 5DU, UK
b
Brooke Hospital for Animals, Broadmead House, 21 Panton Street, London SW1Y 4DR, UK
Received 11 March 2004; received in revised form 9 February 2005; accepted 9 February 2005

Abstract
Working animals provide an essential transport resource in developing countries worldwide.
Many of these animals are owned by poor people and work in harsh environments, so their welfare is
a cause for concern. A protocol was developed to assess the welfare of working horses, mules and
donkeys in urban and peri-urban areas, using direct observation of health and behaviour parameters.
In this study, 4903 animals used for draught, pack and ridden work in Afghanistan, Egypt, India,
Jordan and Pakistan were assessed between December 2002 and April 2003. The data showed that
donkeys were more likely than mules or horses to demonstrate avoidance or aggressive behaviour
towards an observer, while horses were most likely to make a friendly approach. Fewer than 8% of
working equines had abnormal mucous membranes, ectoparasites or poor coat condition. Body
lesions occurred predominantly in the areas of the breast/shoulder, withers and girth in all three
species, with mules having the highest prevalence of lesions in these areas (22.5, 21.3 and 28.4%,
respectively). Among horses and donkeys, the prevalence of these lesions was influenced by the type
of work carried out. Lesions on the head, neck, ribs, flank and tail base were seen in less than 10% of
animals. Across all three species approximately 70% of animals were thin, having a body condition
score (BCS) of 2 or less on a scale of 15 (1, very thin; 5, very fat) and more horses were in very thin
condition (BCS 1) than mules or donkeys. Over 75% of animals demonstrated limb deformities and
abnormalities of gait. The results of this study are being used as the initial stage of a long-term
strategy to inform priorities for welfare interventions in working equines and to establish a welfare
benchmark. Subsequent stages will rank the welfare concerns identified, assess the contributing risk
factors and implement specific interventions to address these risks. Following intervention, success in
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 117 928 9340; fax: +44 117 928 9582.
E-mail address: joy.pritchard@bristol.ac.uk (J.C. Pritchard).
0167-5877/$ see front matter # 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.prevetmed.2005.02.002

266

J.C. Pritchard et al. / Preventive Veterinary Medicine 69 (2005) 265283

improving welfare will be measured by repetition of this protocol and comparison with the
benchmark.
# 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Working equine; Horse; Mule; Donkey; Welfare assessment; Developing countries

1. Introduction
Brooke Hospital for Animals (the Brooke) is a UK charity founded in 1934 to provide
veterinary treatment for equines working in developing countries and to advise their
owners on good management practices. The Brooke has a network of static and mobile
veterinary clinics based in major cities in Afghanistan, Egypt, India, Jordan and Pakistan.
This paper describes collaboration between the Brooke and the University of Bristol to
develop and implement a working equine welfare assessment system. Welfare assessment
systems can be broadly categorised into animal-based or resource-based measures and
different applications tend to draw from one or both of these types of measure (Main et al.,
2003). The long-term aim of this collaboration is to build a strategic working methodology
for the charity, starting with assessment of working equine welfare using animal-based
measures (i.e. direct observations of health and behaviour parameters) as an alternative to
recording resource inputs. At the next stage, the welfare issues identified will be ranked
using expert consultation, followed by a comprehensive assessment of risks contributing to
the most important issues identified. This information will be used as the basis for
interventions to improve welfare. Knowledge of differences in the prevalence of each
health and behaviour parameter between species and across work types will allow
interventions to be targeted at specific problems in specific groups of animals. The success,
or otherwise, of interventions will be evaluated using the same direct observations to
identify the outcomes most relevant to the animals themselves, such as fewer or smaller
body lesions, more positive behavioural interactions with humans or a lower prevalence of
lameness within a population.
There are an estimated 90 million equines in the developing world, with the highest
population concentrations in central Asia and North and East Africa (FAO statistical
database, 2003). Over 95% of all donkeys and mules and 60% of all horses are found in
developing countries (Fielding, 1991) and the majority of these will be used for work.
Recent information regarding the contribution of draught animal power to the economies
of developing countries is scarce, although in 1988 it was estimated that working animals,
including equines, produced 75% of traction energy in the developing world (US.
Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, 1988) and it has been suggested that more
than half of the worlds population depends on animal power as its main energy source
(Wilson, 2003). Today, draught animals and humans provide an estimated 80% of the
power input on farms in developing countries (Pearson, 2005), but traction animals are
often neglected in the allocation of resources such as food, shelter and appropriate
equipment, because they belong to members of the poorest sections of society, who cannot
afford motorised transport. Working equines are used for carting goods and people,
carrying packs, bricks and other construction materials, riding, tillage, weeding, water-

J.C. Pritchard et al. / Preventive Veterinary Medicine 69 (2005) 265283

267

carrying, rubbish collection, tourism and for ceremonial purposes such as weddings and
festivals. A wide spectrum of welfare issues is encountered, including limb disorders, skin
lesions and malnutrition. However, the prevalence of these problems within large
populations and their relationship to work type are not known.
Indirect methods of evaluating the welfare of animals are based on measuring the
adequacy of inputs, such as resources and management provision (Wood et al., 1998;
Bartussek, 1999). These methods indicate a risk of welfare problems rather than an actual
measure of welfare state (Rousing et al., 2001). The advantage of such input-based
assessment methods is that they are usually objective and repeatable; however, a positive
score does not guarantee good welfare (Winckler and Willen, 2001; Whay et al., 2003). The
use of direct, animal-based measurements to assess the welfare of farm and laboratory
animals has increased in recent years. Scoring systems have been developed to assess
lameness in dairy cattle (Whay, 2002), skin lesions in pigs (Leeb et al., 2001) and lameness
in broiler chickens (Kestin et al., 1992). Direct observations provide the measure of welfare
status that is most relevant to the animal itself. Although animal-based observations are
often assessed subjectively, they should provide a more direct, and therefore more valid,
assessment of welfare than resource measurements. Repeatability (precision) of the
observations is an important consideration and subjective health and behaviour
assessments can be very repeatable. Main et al. (2000) demonstrated that locomotion
scoring of pigs could achieve a high level of repeatability between observers, while Hansen
and Mller (2001) demonstrated that, after 30 min of training, six farmers were able to
perform a temperament test on farmed mink and achieve 74100% agreement in results
with an experienced tester. Previous studies of equine welfare have used a combination of
direct and indirect indicators. Most include body condition, sometimes with other animalbased measures, plus indirect measures in the form of resource examination and/or an
owner questionnaire (Christie et al., 2003; Zanella et al., 2003). Animal-based
measurements are particularly appropriate to situations where resource examination is
not practical, as in the case of working equines. Housing, feed provision and other inputs
cannot be measured during the working day; this would require a home visit for each
animal. Owners do not keep animal health records for inspection and questionnaires carry a
risk of social or cultural bias.
Consideration of both health and behaviour is important when assessing welfare.
Behaviour is the expression of an animals perception of, and interaction with, its
environment. In horses, direct observations of behaviour have been used to assess recovery
from intestinal surgery (Durham et al., 2003) and arthroscopic surgery (Price et al., 2003).
Behavioural observations used in farm animals include social behaviour, comfort
behaviour, such as rising behaviour in dairy cattle, and standardised fear tests to measure
the human-animal relationship (Srensen et al., 2001). Rushen et al. (1999) concluded that
rough or aversive handling of farm animals could substantially reduce their productivity
and welfare. Health issues affecting an animals welfare include acute diseases and
disorders causing immediate suffering and long term, progressive conditions causing
chronic pain (Rousing et al., 2001). Physical observations of particular relevance to equines
include body condition score (Henneke et al., 1983; Carol and Huntingdon, 1988), hoof
horn quality (Zenker et al., 1995) and skin turgor as an indicator of hydration status
(Freeman et al., 1999).

268

J.C. Pritchard et al. / Preventive Veterinary Medicine 69 (2005) 265283

The objective of this work was to develop a protocol for assessment of the welfare of
working equines, using direct observations of their health and behaviour. A major
requirement was that the protocol should be suitable for practical use under field
conditions, so it was designed to take less than 10 min per animal, be applicable during the
animals normal working day and most measures did not require the observer to touch the
animal.

2. Methods
2.1. Welfare assessment protocol
Using information obtained from published literature, field experience, a preliminary
consultation with 15 experts in the field of working equine welfare (Lindberg et al., 2003)
and an international meeting of the Brookes field staff, a list of health and behaviour
parameters was devised. Eight descriptors were used, including the date, observer,
geographical region, animal and work type, followed by 41 observations of health and
behaviour and a space for additional observations. Observations were recorded either as
present/absent or as scores of severity.
2.2. Selection of animal-based welfare indicators
A range of indicators was selected to be representative of both behaviour and health
status. Measures of behaviour in relation to human approach and handling were considered
to be important to the future planning of welfare intervention strategies. In this study, novel
tests were used to assess the reaction of horses, mules and donkeys to human approach,
proximity and touch. Clamping down the tail or tucking in the hindquarters (tail tuck) in
response to an observer walking down their side was recorded only for donkeys, because
this response was not seen in mules or horses during previous field-observations. Indicators
of health were selected to gain information about the three major issues identified by the
experts: wounds, lameness and poor body condition. In addition, indicators of heat stress
were proposed by the Brookes veterinary staff. Some lesions, such as those at the
commissures of the lips, on the cranial aspect of the carpus and at the point of the hock,
were considered to be markers for particular risk factors; these were assessed
independently of other lesions on the corresponding body areas. Pathognomonic lesions
relating to two risk factors of concern, firing and tethering/hobbling, were also assessed.
Gait abnormality was assessed over twelve paces at walk. The sole of the foot was
examined on the right fore only. Where the sole surface of the hoof could not be examined
due to a closed shoe (sole and frog covered with leather, rubber or a metal plate), this was
recorded separately.
2.3. Field testing the checklist
The draft welfare assessment checklist was categorised into observations of behaviour,
general health parameters, body condition, limb disorders and lesions of skin and/or deeper

J.C. Pritchard et al. / Preventive Veterinary Medicine 69 (2005) 265283

269

tissues. It was field-tested in Cairo, Egypt in July 2002. The practicality of assessing
each indicator was tested under field conditions, using a wide range of situations where
working equines are encountered. Over 7 days the checklist was used by two pairs of
observers to assess 211 animals, including donkeys transporting goods to and from
markets, riding donkeys, tourist horses, cart horses transporting goods or people and
working equines being sold at markets. The two pairs of observers worked independently
from each other on the same animals, and made continuous modifications to the
checklist, in order to improve the ease and accuracy of observations. The optimum
balance of speed and accuracy (compared with JCP as a gold standard) occurred when
observers worked in pairs, with one person making observations and the other prompting
observations from the checklist and recording the results. Using this method, scoring a
single animal took 57 min.
2.4. Baseline welfare assessment in Jordan, Afghanistan, India, Pakistan and Egypt
As there is no accurate information available about the population of animals in the
countries and regions visited, local knowledge was used to make a best estimate of the
working equine population in the area accessible to each of the Brookes clinics and
outreach teams. This population of approximately 88,600 animals was sub-divided by
species and type of work done. The sampling frame aimed to represent the proportions of
species and work types within each area. Where large populations of a species and work
type were present, the sampling frame aimed to assess at least 5% of the population. Where
small sub-groups of species or work type were present, such as with ceremonial horses, the
entire sub-group was assessed. Sampling was carried out in streets, markets, brick kilns
(factories) and at tonga (carriage/cart) stands between December 2002 and April 2003. The
work areas of different animal groups did not overlap and sampling was carried out in a
different work area each day. A handbook of photographs and descriptions for each
indicator, produced by ACL and JCP, was provided to observers. After initial training by
JCP, HRW or both, the data were collected by eight observers working in pairs.
2.5. Data handling
In each country, data were recorded by hand and entered into a dedicated web-based
database (Neil Ambrose, Smart Tuna Ltd.). In the UK, the database was transferred to
SPSS (SPSS Inc.) and analysed for prevalence of each health and behaviour parameter.
Two animals were eliminated from the analysis due to missing data relating to work type
and two groups of animals (pack mules, n = 9, and other donkeys, n = 3) were eliminated
due to small sample size. Data were collated according to species and work type. The
twelve work types identified in the sample were aggregated into four categories: draught,
pack, ridden and other, which were mainly ceremonial horses used for weddings (see
Table 1). Table 2 gives a description of the sex, age group and work type of the animals
observed. Severity thresholds were considered as presence/absence of a health or
behaviour parameter for analysis purposes. The observations of individual animals were
compiled and expressed as the proportion of animals demonstrating the observed
behaviour or health parameter within each species sampled.

270

J.C. Pritchard et al. / Preventive Veterinary Medicine 69 (2005) 265283

Table 1
Types of work carried out by 4903 equine animals assessed in Afghanistan, Egypt, India, Jordan and Pakistan
Aggregated category

Components

Draught

Agriculture (e.g. ploughing, weeding)

Brick kilnbricks transported by cart
Tourism (carriage)
Transport of goods by cart (including agricultural goods being taken to market)
Transport of people (non-tourists, carriage)

Pack

Brick kilnbricks transported by pack

Transport of goods by pack (including agricultural goods being taken to market)

Ridden

Riding (non-tourists)
Tourism (riding)

Other

Ceremonial (e.g. wedding)

Foal of working mother
Other work type not covered elsewhere

Groups of observations belonging to similar categories were also aggregated for further
analysis. Lack of responsiveness to environment/handling was examined by aggregating
scores for apathy/severe depression, lack of response to observer approach and to the observer
walking down the animals side. A measure of limb problems was derived from aggregated
scores for firing lesions, tether/hobble lesions, swelling of tendons/joints, limb deformities,
hoof walls too long or short, abnormal sole surface and abnormal hoof horn quality.
The interactions between different measurements were examined using the Chi-squared
test with significance measured using either the Monte-Carlo estimation or the exact test
when computational limits allowed. Spearman rank correlation was then used to relate the
measurements. The overall level of significance was set to P < 0.05.
Table 2
Description of work type, sex and age group of 4889 equine animals assessed in Afghanistan, Egypt, India, Jordan
and Pakistan
Species
Donkey

Mule
Work type (n)

Horse

Work type (n)

Work type (n)

Total
Draught Pack Ridden Draught
(2596) (1773)
(272) (551)
(222)

Total
Draught Pack Ridden Other
(2071) (1659)
(50) (177)
(185)

1972
14
610

1487
6
280

175
1
96

310
7
234

115
32
73

1071
27
973

938
13
708

31
0
19

50
12
115

52
2
131

Age group (years)b

Less than 5 552
515
1687
Over 15
357

329
1217
227

73
167
32

150
303
98

30
146
44

260
1390
418

165
1113
379

20
27
3

40
122
14

35
128
22

Sexa
Stallion
Gelding
Mare

a
b

Missing sex data for two mules.

Missing age group data for two mules and three horses.

J.C. Pritchard et al. / Preventive Veterinary Medicine 69 (2005) 265283

271

3. Results
3.1. Animals sampled
Of the 4903 animals sampled, 4889 were included in all analyses; this comprised
2596 donkeys, 222 mules and 2071 horses. Across all species, the study sampled five to
18% of animals from the target populations. The largest number of animals (3654) were
involved in draught work and mules in this sample were not used for any other type of
work. Within the sample there were more entire male donkeys and mules than mares or
geldings, across all work types. Among the horses, stallions were used more for draught
and pack work and mares were used more for ridden and ceremonial work. Fewer than
3% of male animals were gelded; the number of geldings was higher among mules than
horses or donkeys. Across all species the majority of animals observed were in the 515
year age group.
3.2. Assessment of welfare
The observations of individual animals shown in Table 3 are expressed as the proportion
of animals demonstrating the observed behaviour or health parameter within each species.
The significance of differences in the prevalence of each observation between species is
also shown. In response to an observer approaching the animals head, 12.1% of donkeys
showed a friendly approach (turning head towards the observer), 44.3% responded with
avoidance (turning head away or moving away from the observer) or aggressive behaviour
and 43.6% showed no response at all. Horses demonstrated significantly higher proportions
(P < 0.001) of friendly approach (19.1%) and no response to the observer (54.7%) and a
lower proportion of avoidance or aggression (26.0%) than donkeys. Twenty-eight percent
of donkeys responded to the observer walking down their side and back again by clamping
down the tail and in some cases tucking in the hindquarters as well. The proportion of
horses avoiding chin contact by the observers cupped hand was significantly higher
(P < 0.001) than that of donkeys or mules.
The observations of body condition showed that across all species approximately 70%
of animals were thin, having a body condition score (BCS) of 2 or less on a scales of 15 (1,
very thin; 5, very fat). More horses were in very thin condition (BCS 1) than mules or
donkeys. The observations of general health showed that fewer than 8% of working equines
had abnormal mucous membranes, missing teeth, ectoparasites or poor coat condition. A
high proportion of animals (37.1% of donkeys, 45.9% of mules and 50.2% of horses)
showed an increased skin tent duration, despite fewer than 4% of all species showing overt
signs of heat stress.
Limb-associated abnormalities were highly prevalent across all species, with 94.7% of
working donkeys, 90.9% of working mules and 89.6% of working horses showing some
degree of gait abnormality, ranging from mildly abnormal to severely lame. Cow hocked
conformation, congenital and acquired angular limb deformities, swelling of tendons and
joints and abnormal hoof horn quality were present in over 75% of all animals observed.
The sole surface of the right fore foot was abnormal in over 80% of animals observed and in
a further 4% it could not be assessed due to presence of a closed shoe.

272

J.C. Pritchard et al. / Preventive Veterinary Medicine 69 (2005) 265283

Table 3
Behaviour and health parameters of 4889 working horses, mules and donkeys, expressed as a proportion within
each species
% Within each species
Donkey
(n=2596)

Significance of difference in
proportion between species (P)

Mule
(n=222)

Horse
(n=2071)

Observations of behaviour (% of animals)

General attitude
Alert
88.5
Apathetic/severely depressed
11.5

90.5
9.5

91.9
8.1

<0.01

Response to observer approacha

No response
Friendly approach
Avoidance/aggression

43.6
12.1
44.3

55.4
14.9
29.7

54.7
19.3
26.0

<0.001

Walk down sideb

No response
Responds

9.4
90.6

9.5
90.5

10.6
89.4

<0.05

Tail tuck (donkeys only)c

Avoids chin contactd

28.2
18.3

n/a
18.9

n/a
24.4

n/a
<0.001

General observations (% of animals)

Body condition score (scales 15)
1
21.5
2
48.8
35
29.7

27.5
49.1
23.4

31.4
38.4
30.2

<0.001

Observations of healthe
Mucous membranes abnormal
Lesions at commissures of lipsf
Teeth missing
Molar hooks or sharp edges
Eye(s) abnormalg
Coat staring/matted/dry/uneven
Ectoparasites
Diarrhoea under tail
Skin tent (loss of elasticity)
Heat stressh
Firing lesions or scarsf
Tether/hobble lesions or scarsf
Carpal lesions or scarsf
Hock lesions or scarsf
Swelling of tendons/joints
Limb deformityi
Cow hocked conformation
Hoof wall(s) too long
Hoof wall(s) too short
Hoof horn quality abnormal
Sole surface abnormal (RF)
Gait abnormalj

1.8
54.8
1.9
85.1
64.4
1.8
1.4
19.4
45.9
1.8
8.1
79.3
59.5
27.5
79.7
76.6
84.2
46.8
26.1
76.6
87.7
90.9

4.7
31.9
1.8
80.3
66.4
2.3
5.1
18.2
50.2
3.9
19.2
62.1
53.4
34.5
89.1
85.4
77.3
55.5
30.9
81.7
80.3
89.6

<0.01
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
Not significant
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.05
<0.01
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001

2.9
30.1
3.0
76.5
86.4
2.5
7.6
8.7
37.1
1.0
21.7
88.8
63.9
49.8
80.0
92.4
87.0
52.0
25.8
88.6
92.6
94.7

J.C. Pritchard et al. / Preventive Veterinary Medicine 69 (2005) 265283

273

Table 3 (Continued )
% Within each species
Donkey
(n=2596)
Lesions of skin and/or deeper tissuesk
Head
5.5
Ears
0.7
Neck
1.5
Breast/shoulder
11.5
Withers
10.2
Spine
7.5
Girth
18.3
Belly
1.1
Ribs/flank
3.2
Hindquarters
12.1
Tail/tail base
5.5
Forelegs (except carpus)
4.1
Hindlegs (except hock)
5.3

Mule
(n=222)

Horse
(n=2071)

1.8
0
1.8
22.5
21.3
1.4
28.4
3.2
2.7
5.9
9.1
4.6
6.4

4.7
0.3
1.5
7.7
13.2
7.0
19.2
2.5
2.9
5.3
5.3
8.1
6.5

Significance of difference in
proportion between species (P)

<0.05
Not significant
Not significant
<0.001
<0.001
<0.05
<0.05
<0.01
Not significant
<0.001
<0.05
<0.001
Not significant

n/a: not applicable.

a
Response to observer approaching the animals head from 3 to 5 m away, at angle of approximately 458 (more
acute if animal is wearing blinkers). Friendly approach: animal turns head towards observer. Avoidance/
aggression: animal does one or more of following: turns head away, moves away, flattens ears, attempts to bite
or kick.
b
Response to observer walking down side of animals body at distance of 30 cm from its side, turning at tail and
walking back to head. Responds: any acknowledgment of observers presence, e.g. ear turn, head turn, move away,
kick.
c
Proportion of donkeys clamping down tail and/or tucking in hindquarters when observer was level with
hindquarters during walk down side.
d
Proportion of animals avoiding contact or withdrawing head when hand was placed lightly under the chin.
e
Proportion of animals with signs of each condition.
f
Proportion of animals with lesion of any kind including hair loss, healed lesion, scar.
g
Proportion of animals with any abnormality of eye including ocular discharge.
h
Proportion of animals showing most or all of the following: flared nostrils, increased respiratory rate, increased
respiratory depth with head movement, apathy.
i
Proportion of animals showing lateral or flexural abnormalities of the limbs, excuding cow hocked
conformation.
j
Proportion of animals showing abnormalities of gait or overt lameness.
k
Proportion of animals with full thickness skin or deeper lesions measuring at least 2 cm  2 cm or
1 cm  4 cm. Firing, tether, carpus, hock and lip lesions scored previously were not included.

Lesions of skin and deeper tissues were most prevalent on the breast/shoulder, withers
and girth regions of all three species, with mules having a significantly higher frequency
than others. Donkeys had a relatively high prevalence of lesions on the hindquarters
(12.1%) compared with mules and horses.
Tables 4 and 5 illustrate significant associations between type of work and measures of
welfare in the donkeys and horses, respectively. In this sample, mules only carried out
draught work so no work type comparisons could be made. Thirty-five of the 41 welfare
observations made in working donkeys showed a significant difference (P < 0.01) in
prevalence between work types (Table 4). Pack donkeys were more likely to be alert,
friendly and responsive and less likely to tuck in their tails in response to an observer

274

J.C. Pritchard et al. / Preventive Veterinary Medicine 69 (2005) 265283

Table 4
Significant associations between work type and behaviour and health parameters in 2596 working donkeys,
expressed as a proportion within each work type
% Within each work type
Draught
(n=1773)

Significance of difference in
proportion between work types (P)

Pack
(n=272)

Ridden
(n=551)

Observations of behaviour (% of animals)

General attitude
Alert
87.6
Apathetic/severely depressed
12.4

95.6
4.4

87.7
12.3

<0.01

Response to observer approacha

No response
Friendly approach
Avoidance/aggression

45.1
11.3
43.7

61.0
15.8
23.2

30.3
12.9
56.8

<0.001

Walk down sideb

No response
Responds

8.8
91.2

15.1
84.9

8.5
91.5

<0.01

Tail tuck (donkeys only)c

Avoids chin contactd

29.6
17.9

9.2
17.0

33.8
20.5

<0.001
<0.05

General observations (% of animals)

Body condition score (scales 15)
1
25.5
2
49.1
35
25.4

20.6
61.4
18.0

9.3
41.6
49.2

<0.001

Observations of healthe
Mucous membranes abnormal
Lesions at commissures of lipsf
Teeth missing
Molar hooks or sharp edges
Eye(s) abnormalg
Coat staring/matted/dry/uneven
Ectoparasites
Diarrhoea under tail
Skin tent (loss of elasticity)
Heat stressh
Firing lesions or scarsf
Tether/hobble lesions or scarsf
Carpal lesions or scarsf
Hock lesions or scarsf
Swelling of tendons/joints
Limb deformityi
Cow hocked conformation
Hoof wall(s) too long
Hoof wall(s) too short
Hoof horn quality abnormal
Sole surface abnormal (RF)
Gait abnormalj

1.1
3.3
1.8
84.2
53.3
9.6
3.3
4.0
11.8
1.9
5.1
85.7
49.3
37.1
78.3
88.6
77.2
62.1
40.1
5.2
94.9
98.2

3.4
8.9
3.5
69.3
95.6
2.7
9.8
1.1
33.8
0.5
22.2
98.0
59.9
54.5
77.7
89.5
86.4
47.5
16.0
18.3
89.8
90.4

Not significant
<0.001
<0.05
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.05
<0.001
<0.001
<0.01
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.01
<0.01
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001

2.9
40.8
3.1
77.5
88.5
1.3
7.5
11.8
42.0
1.0
24.0
86.4
67.3
50.3
80.9
93.9
88.7
51.8
26.6
65.0
95.4
95.5

J.C. Pritchard et al. / Preventive Veterinary Medicine 69 (2005) 265283

275

Table 4 (Continued )
% Within each work type
Draught
(n=1773)
Lesions of skin and/or deeper tissuesk
Head
6.9
Ears
0.8
Neck
2.1
Breast/shoulder
16.2
Withers
8.2
Spine
5.1
Girth
16.9
Belly
1.4
Ribs/flank
3.6
Hindquarters
13.6
Tail/tail base
6.4
Forelegs (except carpus)
5.3
Hindlegs (except hock)
5.4

Pack
(n=272)
0.4
0.7
0
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.1
1.1
6.3
27.3
7.8
0.7
14.0

Ridden
(n=551)
3.6
0.2
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.6
1.5
0.2
0.5
0
1.6
2.0
0.7

Significance of difference in
proportion between work types (P)

<0.001
Not significant
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
Not significant
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001

n/a: not applicable.

a
Response to observer approaching the animals head from 3 to 5 m away, at angle of approximately 458 (more
acute if animal is wearing blinkers). Friendly approach: animal turns head towards observer. Avoidance/
aggression: animal does one or more of following: turns head away, moves away, flattens ears, attempts to bite
or kick.
b
Response to observer walking down side of animals body at distance of 30 cm from its side, turning at tail and
walking back to head. Responds: any acknowledgment of observers presence, e.g. ear turn, head turn, move away,
kick.
c
Proportion of donkeys clamping down tail and/or tucking in hindquarters when observer was level with
hindquarters during walk down side.
d
Proportion of animals avoiding contact or withdrawing head when hand was placed lightly under the chin.
e
Proportion of animals with signs of each condition.
f
Proportion of animals with lesion of any kind including hair loss, healed lesion, scar.
g
Proportion of animals with any abnormality of eye including ocular discharge.
h
Proportion of animals showing most or all of the following: flared nostrils, increased respiratory rate, increased
respiratory depth with head movement, apathy.
i
Proportion of animals showing lateral or flexural abnormalities of the limbs, excuding cow hocked
conformation.
j
Proportion of animals showing abnormalities of gait or overt lameness.
k
Proportion of animals with full thickness skin or deeper lesions measuring at least 2 cm  2 cm or
1 cm  4 cm. Firing, tether, carpus, hock and lip lesions scored previously were not included.

walking down their side than those doing draught or ridden work. They were also most
likely to be thin, with 82% of pack donkeys in body condition 2 or 1, compared with 75.6%
of draught and 50.9% of ridden donkeys. Draught donkeys were most likely to have lesions
at the commissures of the lips, on the cranial aspect of the carpus, on the head, breast/
shoulder, withers, spine (all significant at P < 0.001) and girth (P < 0.01). Those carrying
packs were most likely to have lesions on the hindquarters, tail/tail base and hindlegs
(P < 0.001). Draught donkeys also had the highest prevalence of swollen tendons and
joints, deformed limbs, cow hocked conformation, abnormal hoof horn quality and
abnormal sole surface. However, pack work was more associated with hoof walls being too
long or too short and abnormal gait.

276

J.C. Pritchard et al. / Preventive Veterinary Medicine 69 (2005) 265283

Table 5
Significant associations between work type and behaviour and health parameters in 2071 working horses,
expressed as a proportion within each work type
% Within each work type
Draught
(n=1659)

Significance of difference
in proportion between
work types (P)

Pack
(n=50)

Ridden
(n=177)

Other
(n=185)

Observations of behaviour (% of animals)

General attitude
Alert
90.5
Apathetic/severely depressed
9.5

92.0
8.0

97.7
2.3

99.5
0.5

<0.001

Response to observer approacha

No response
Friendly approach
Avoidance/aggression

58.3
17.4
24.3

48.0
30.0
22.0

22.0
32.2
45.8

55.1
21.1
23.8

<0.001

Walk down sideb

No response
Responds

8.9
91.1

12.2
87.8

14.4
85.6

22.2
77.8

<0.001

Avoids chin contactc

23.9

12.0

24.1

32.4

<0.05

General observations (% of animals)

Body condition score (scales 15)
1
38.2
2
37.3
35
24.6

6.0
62.0
32.0

2.3
36.4
61.9

4.9
43.8
50.8

<0.001

Observations of healthd
Mucous membranes abnormal
Lesions at commissures of lipse
Teeth missing
Molar hooks or sharp edges
Eye(s) abnormalf
Coat staring/matted/dry/uneven
Ectoparasites
Diarrhoea under tail
Skin tent (loss of elasticity)
Heat stressg
Firing lesions or scarse
Tether/hobble lesions or scarse
Carpal lesions or scarse
Hock lesions or scarse
Swelling of tendons/joints
Limb deformityh
Cow hocked conformation
Hoof wall(s) too long
Hoof wall(s) too short
Hoof horn quality abnormal
Sole surface abnormal (RF)
Gait abnormali

2.0
20.0
2.1
72.9
20.0
18.0
14.0
4.0
12.0
0
2.0
50.0
28.0
20.0
84.0
86.0
95.9
56.0
46.0
26.0
81.6
93.9

3.4
14.7
0.6
64.2
71.8
0
10.8
1.7
35.4
1.1
6.8
63.6
38.9
48.6
64.3
55.7
40.9
54.8
11.4
55.1
80.3
61.0

0.5
16.3
0.6
76.5
27.7
1.6
0
6.0
37.5
0.5
3.3
47.0
39.9
29.5
91.3
73.2
72.0
50.5
47.8
72.1
0.7
78.1

<0.01
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.01
<0.001
<0.001
<0.05
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.01
<0.01
<0.001
<0.001
<0.01
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001

5.4
35.9
2.0
82.5
71.5
2.1
4.8
21.8
54.3
4.6
22.8
64.0
57.1
34.0
91.3
89.6
81.2
56.1
30.7
87.0
88.3
93.7

J.C. Pritchard et al. / Preventive Veterinary Medicine 69 (2005) 265283

277

Table 5 (Continued )
% Within each work type
Draught
(n=1659)
Lesions of skin and/or deeper tissuesj
Head
5.5
Ears
0.4
Neck
1.8
Breast/shoulder
9.0
Withers
14.8
Spine
7.7
Girth
22.8
Belly
3.0
Ribs/flank
3.2
Hindquarters
6.2
Tail/tail base
6.4
Forelegs (except carpus)
9.4
Hindlegs (except hock)
7.6

Pack
(n=50)

0
0
0
0
20.0
10.0
2.0
0
0
6.0
0
0
0

Ridden
(n=177)

0
0
0
0
4.0
5.1
3.2
0
3.4
1.1
0
5.1
2.8

Other
(n=185)

3.3
0
0.5
5.4
5.4
1.1
6.5
0.5
0.5
1.6
1.6
1.7
2.2

Significance of difference
in proportion between
work types (P)

<0.01
Not significant
Not significant
<0.001
<0.001
Not significant
<0.001
Not significant
Not significant
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01

Response to observer approaching the head from 3 to 5 m away at angle of approximately 458 (more acute if
animal wearing blinkers). Friendly approach: animal turns head towards observer. Avoidance/aggression: animal
does one or more of following: turns head away, moves away, flattens ears, attempts to bite or kick.
b
Response to observer walking down side of animals body at distance of 30 cm from its side, turning at tail and
walking back along side to head. Responds: any acknowledgment of observers presence, e.g. ear turn, head turn,
move away, kick.
c
Proportion of animals avoiding contact or withdrawing head when hand was placed lightly under the chin.
d
Proportion of animals with signs of each condition.
e
Proportion of animals with lesion of any kind including hair loss, healed lesion, scar.
f
Proportion of animals with any abnormality of eye including ocular discharge.
g
Proportion of animals showing most or all of the following: flared nostrils, increased respiratory rate, increased
respiratory depth with head movement, apathy.
h
Proportion of animals showing lateral or flexural abnormalities of the limbs, excuding cow hocked
conformation.
i
Proportion of animals showing abnormalities of gait or overt lameness.
j
Proportion of animals with full thickness skin or deeper lesions measuring at least 2 cm  2 cm or
1 cm  4 cm. Firing, tether, carpus, hock and lip lesions scored previously were not included.

Table 5 summarises the horses observed. Those which were ridden or doing other work
types (mainly ceremonial) were most likely to be alert, to avoid chin contact by an observer
and to be in good to fat body condition (BCS 35). Like donkeys, draught horses had a
relatively high prevalence of lesions at the commissures of the lips, on the cranial aspect of the
carpus and on the head, breast/shoulder and girth, but the prevalence of lesions on the withers
was higher in pack horses than draught horses and those doing ridden or other work.
Abnormal gait and sole surface, cow hocked conformation and limb deformities were more
likely to be seen in pack or draught horses than ridden or other work types.
Table 6 shows correlations between aggregated behaviour and health parameters in the
working equines observed. Correlation coefficients exceeding r = 0.3 included low body
condition score with systemic health abnormalities (r = 0.316), low body condition score
with lesions of skin and deeper tissues (r = 0.371) and limb problems with abnormal gait
(r = 0.337).

278

J.C. Pritchard et al. / Preventive Veterinary Medicine 69 (2005) 265283

Table 6
Correlations between aggregated behaviour and health parameters of 4889 working equine animals assessed in
Afghanistan, Egypt, India, Jordan and Pakistan
Behaviour and health parameters

Correlation coefficient

Lack of responsiveness to environment/handlinga

Low body condition score
Lesions of skin and deeper tissues
Abnormal gait
Systemic health abnormalitiesb
Limb problemsc

0.150
0.102
0.058
0.002
0.019

<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
Not significant
Not significant

Low body condition score

Lesions of skin and deeper tissues
Systemic health abnormalitiesb
Abnormal gait
Limb problemsc

0.371
0.316
0.132
0.047

<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
0.001

Lesions of skin and deeper tissues

Systemic health abnormalitiesb
Abnormal gait
Limb problemsc

0.203
0.096
0.019

<0.001
<0.001
Not significant

Limb problemsc
Abnormal gait
Systemic health abnormalitiesb

0.337
0.046

<0.001
0.001

Significance at P < 0.01 level is reported.

a
Aggregated score: general attitude + responsiveness to observer approach + responsiveness to observer
walking down side.
b
Aggregated score: mucous membranes + coat condition + diarrhoea + skin tent + heat stress.
c
Aggregated score: firing lesions + tether/hobble lesions + swelling of tendons/joints + deformed limbs + hoof
too long + hoof too short + sole surface abnormal (RF) + hoof horn quality.

4. Discussion
The 4903 horses, mules and donkeys assessed do not necessarily represent the welfare
status of all working equines in developing countries worldwide because conditions vary
within and between countries. Accurate population demographics are not known so fully
representative sampling is difficult. The Brookes clinics are based in and around large
towns and cities where work pressures on equines are thought to be greatest, therefore
agricultural draught animals are under-represented in the sample. The four work type
categories used in the analysis represent all major uses of working equines in urban and
peri-urban areas and this study is probably the largest assessment of the welfare of working
equines carried out to date.
In order to maintain a standardised assessment, the observations were made by eight
assessors who were trained and supplied with detailed guidance notes and photographs
illustrating the scores. The assessors also received training in the field in their own
countries. Two inter- and intra-observer repeatability tests carried out on this group of
observers showed good agreement and will be reported elsewhere, as will an analysis of
observations according to country and region.

J.C. Pritchard et al. / Preventive Veterinary Medicine 69 (2005) 265283

279

The welfare assessment protocol was based on direct observations of animals and
designed for use in any situation where working equines can be observed, regardless of
their breed or work type. The requirement for disturbance to the animals work was kept to
a minimum, although it was necessary to look under harness and remove pack saddles. The
major health and behaviour parameters to be assessed were identified by consultation with
15 experts in the field and by the Brookes international field staff, to ensure a broad range
of opinion on its content and validity. The protocol meets the requirements for satisfactory
welfare indicators listed by Srensen et al. (2001), who stated they will:
1. Describe relevant and significant aspects of what matters from the point of view of the
animals.
2. Express changes over time (i.e. at subsequent assessments, changes in welfare could be
demonstrated using the indicators selected).
3. Be capable of being influenced by decisions taken by the individual farmer (in this case,
the equine owner or user).
4. Be measurable in a relatively cheap and easy manner.
The novel behaviour observations used in this protocol were developed to give indications of the responsiveness of an animal to the environment and to attempt to identify
fearfulness. Fear is a negative motivational affective state and in a strong or prolonged form
constitutes suffering (Fraser and Duncan, 1998). Working equines may be unresponsive
due to disease, exhaustion, over-stimulation by a crowded and noisy city environment or to
avoid soliciting harsh handling. Animals displaying fear behaviour are often exposed to
adverse handling procedures because they react inappropriately to handling (Rousing et al.,
2001). In equine species, fear behaviour presents a serious risk of injury to handlers,
resulting in a cycle of increasing severity of restraint and increasing fear. Where the person
who works the animal is not the owner, as with brick kiln donkeys in Cairo or hired riding
mules in north India, the bond of interdependence is broken, so the risk of adverse handling
is thought to increase. A limitation of these behaviour observations is that the response to
an unfamiliar person may differ from the response to the regular handler, as observed in
comparable tests on dairy calves (de Passille et al., 1996). An assessment of the quality of
the human-animal bond is relevant to the development of welfare interventions for working
equines because, without a degree of social bonding between the owner or user and his
animal and in the absence of enforced legal protection for the animals welfare, there is
little motivation to improve welfare beyond the minimum necessary to enable it to earn
money.
The study demonstrates a high prevalence of abnormalities of teeth, eyes and limbs
across all three species. Dental rasping is not carried out in most working equines; this may
be due to sparse availability, cost or quality of veterinary services and lack of knowledge on
behalf of owners. Eye abnormalities seen ranged from mild discharge to signs of ocular
pain, keratitis, uveitis and blindness. Determination of aetiology and risk factors for eye
abnormalities in working equines is one potential area for future study.
The prevalence of increased skin tent duration was 37.1% of donkeys, 45.9% of mules
and 50.2% of horses. Observations of skin tent duration, a clinical indicator of dehydration,
were made in the winter and spring periods. In summer, the prevalence of both increased

280

J.C. Pritchard et al. / Preventive Veterinary Medicine 69 (2005) 265283

skin tent duration and signs of heat stress would be expected to be much higher. There was a
highly significant difference (P < 0.001) between the species. Assuming that the clinical
indicators of dehydration are equally appropriate across all three species, it is unsurprising
that donkeys, which are adapted to arid environments and conserve body water in
conditions of water deprivation (Maloiy and Boarer, 1971; Yousef, 1991), show the lowest
prevalence of increased skin tent duration. The amount of suffering caused by dehydration
is unknown, but where animals are working in ambient temperatures of up to 48 8C this is
an area of serious concern for their welfare.
Only one foot of each animal was lifted to minimise disturbance through handling and to
maximise the safety of the observer. For uniformity, the sole of the right fore foot was
examined in every case. Swollen tendons and joints, angular limb deformities and
abnormalities of the hoof horn and sole surface were present in over 75% of equines
observed and have serious welfare implications for animals which may be required to work
at trot or canter on roads for several hours per day. Ninety percent of working equines
showed a gait abnormality over 12 paces at walk; these varied from uneven gait in animals
with poor limb conformation through mild to severe lameness. A standard lameness
examination includes a 20 m trot away and then back towards the observer. This was not
possible under field conditions due to time constraints, crowding in observation areas and
animals being untrained to trot in-hand. In addition, some of the equines were examined
while harnessed to loaded carts. A standard lameness examination would be expected to
identify more lame animals than the method used. In dairy heifers, lameness was found to
be associated with hyperalgesia, which is a component of pain (Whay et al., 1997).
Conditions of the foot causing lameness in cattle and sheep were given pain scores of 68
(scale: 0, no pain; 10, the worst pain imaginable) by the majority of a group of experts from
the UK Cattle Veterinary Society and Sheep Veterinary Society, respectively (Scott et al.,
2003). It is reasonable to assume that a high proportion of equines showing lameness and
swollen tendons/joints will be suffering pain throughout their working day.
Tables 4 and 5 illustrate associations between different welfare measures and the type of
work carried out by the horse or donkey. Some observations are easier to explain than
others. For example, in many draught equines a bit is used for steering and braking, so
lesions at the commissures of the lips are expected to be more common than in pack
animals which are usually not bitted. The cause of lesions on the body is not understood in
some cases, although the site of some lesions is likely to be related to the type and position
of the girth, breast strap and saddle. Draught animals may also be more likely to fall on
roads at high speed than those doing other types of work, causing lesions on the cranial
aspect of the carpus. Pack donkeys commonly work in brick kilns or on construction sites
and are driven using a stick to beat the hindquarters and tail base, which may explain the
greater prevalence of lesions in these body areas. However the proposed behavioural
marker for beating (tail tuck) is less prevalent in pack donkeys than in draught or ridden
donkeys. This could be due to the pack animals ability to attempt to escape a raised stick
by running forward, while a harnessed or ridden donkey cannot avoid contact by moving
away so responds by tucking in the hindquarters and tail.
The results of the correlations between aggregated health and behaviour parameters are
shown in Table 6. Although no correlation coefficients were greater than r = 0.38, they
indicate the presence of some complex interactions between groups of parameters. The

J.C. Pritchard et al. / Preventive Veterinary Medicine 69 (2005) 265283

281

higher correlation coefficients were those between expected parameters; for example,
those correlating limb problems with abnormal gait (r = 0.337) and correlating low body
condition score with systemic health abnormalities (r = 0.316). In addition, the highest
correlation coefficient was that between low body condition score and lesions of skin and
deeper tissues (r = 0.371). Low body condition score is an indicator of reduced body fat
(Henneke et al., 1983); consequently, thin animals may have less natural padding
protecting them from pressure, friction and shear lesions caused by harness. Interestingly,
lack of behavioural responsiveness showed correlation coefficients that were always below
r = 0.15. This may be surprising, as depression and behavioural unresponsiveness could be
expected to result from lesion pain, or the negative energy balance causing low body
condition score; however, stimulation by the approach of an observer or from a noisy
environment may over-ride chronic physical states.
Although the protocol gives a snapshot of the animals welfare at a single point in
time, most of the observations were chosen as indicators of problems that have developed
over the previous weeks or months. A limitation is that most observations (with the
exception of some behavioural tests, such as alertness and friendly approach) reflected
adverse welfare rather than looking for positive measures of good welfare. Identifying
good aspects of welfare is particularly important if information is to be fed back to owners.
Positive behaviour patterns, such as play or grooming, are event behaviours and as such
cannot be induced by a simple test or interaction, so are not suitable for this type of
snapshot assessment. However, in the context of this study, the absence of health
problems and observations of negative behaviour can be presented to owners as a positive
outcome.
Where the prevalence of a welfare issue was found to be high, such as with eye
abnormalities or gait abnormalities, a more detailed set of observations could be
formulated in order to identify specific treatable or avoidable conditions. The welfare
significance of some animal-based observations, such as abnormal gait, is beginning to
be understood. In others, such as where an animal carries a pack overlying large skin
lesions or pulls a cart for 8 h without water, the welfare significance is as yet
unquantified and it may be necessary to extrapolate from analogous situations in
humans or other animal species in order to inform priorities for intervention. When the
most urgent welfare problems have been identified and ranked, risk factor analysis is
the next complex area to be addressed, for example, using resource examination and
detailed questionnaires for working equine owners and users. Repetition of the welfare
assessment can then be used to measure the effect of targeted resource or management
interventions.

Acknowledgements
This study was supported and funded by the Brooke Hospital for Animals. The authors
would like to thank Drs. Amro Hassan Abdullah, Ahmad Raza Khan, Mohammed
Hammad El-Shahat, Shabir Ahmed Mir, Ali Ahmed Mohammed Twaissi and Mr. Kartick
Satyanarayan for their assistance with data collection. We would also like to thank all the
owners who kindly permitted examination of their horses, mules and donkeys.

282

J.C. Pritchard et al. / Preventive Veterinary Medicine 69 (2005) 265283

References
Bartussek, H., 1999. A review of the animal needs index (ANI) for the assessment of animals well-being in the
housing systems for Austrian proprietary products and legislation. Livest. Prod. Sci. 61 (23), 179192.
Carol, C.L., Huntingdon, P.J., 1988. Body condition scoring and weight estimation in horses. Equine Vet. J. 20 (1),
4245.
Christie, J.L., Hewson, C.J., Riley, C.R., Dohoo, I.R., McNiven, M.A., Bate, L.A., 2003. Factors affecting the
welfare of non-racing horses in Prince Edward Island Canada. In: Proceedings of the 37th International
Congress of the International Society for Applied Ethology, Abano Terme, Italy, 2428 June, p. 200.
de Passille , A.M.B., Rushen, J., Ladewig, J., Petherick, C., 1996. Dairy calves discrimination of people based on
previous handling. J. Anim. Sci. 74, 969974.
Durham, A.E., Phillips, T.J., Walmsley, J.P., Newton, J.R., 2003. Study of the clinical effects of post-operative
parenteral nutrition in 15 horses. Vet. Rec. 153, 493498.
FAO, 2003. FAO Statistical Database Website. Food and Agriculture Organisation, Rome, Italy (FAOSTATS:
http://apps.fao.org).
Fielding, D., 1991. The number and distribution of equines in the world. In: Proceedings of the Colloquium on
Donkeys, Mules and Horses in Tropical Agricultural Development, Edinburgh, 36 September, pp. 6266.
Fraser, D., Duncan, I.J.H., 1998. Pleasures pains and animal welfare: toward a natural history of affect. Anim.
Welfare 7, 383396.
Freeman, D.A., Cymbaluk, N.F., Schott, H.C., Hinchcliff, K., McDonnell, S.M., Kyle, B., 1999. Clinical,
biochemical, and hygiene assessment of stabled horses provided continuous or intermittent access to drinking
water. Am. J. Vet. Res. 60 (11), 14451450.
Hansen, S.W., Mller, S.H., 2001. The application of a temperament test to on-farm selection of mink.. Acta Agr.
Scand. A: An Suppl. 30, 9398.
Henneke, D.R., Potter, G.D., Kreider, J.L., Yeates, B.F., 1983. Relationship between condition score, physical
measurement and body fat percentage in mares. Equine Vet. J. 15, 371372.
Kestin, S.C., Knowles, T.G., Tinch, A.E., Gregory, N.G., 1992. Prevalence of leg weakness in broiler chickens and
its relationship with genotype. Vet. Rec. 131, 190194.
Leeb, B., Leeb, C., Troxler, J., Schuh, M., 2001. Skin lesions and callosities in group-housed pregnant sows:
animal-related welfare indicators. Acta Agr. Scand. A: An Suppl. 30, 8287.
Lindberg, A.C., Leeb, C., Pritchard, J.C., Whay, H.R., Main, D.C.J., 2003. Determination of welfare problems and
their perceived causes in working equines. In: Proceedings of the Universities Federation for Animal Welfare
Symposium, Edinburgh, 24 April, p. 247.
Main, D.C.J., Clegg, J., Spatz, A., Green, L.E., 2000. Repeatability of a lameness scoring system for finishing pigs.
Vet. Rec. 147, 574576.
Main, D.C.J., Kent, J.P., Wemelsfelder, F., Ofner, E., Tuyttens, F.A.M., 2003. Applications for methods of on-farm
welfare assessment. In: Proceedings of the Second International Workshop on the Assessment of Animal
Welfare at Farm and Group Level, vol. 12, issue 4, Anim. Welfare, pp. 523528.
Maloiy, G.M.O., Boarer, C.D.H., 1971. Response of the Somali donkey to dehydration: haematological changes.
Am. J. Physiol. 221, 3741.
Pearson, R.A., 2005. Contributions to Society: Draught and Transport. Encyclopedia of Animal Science. Marcel
Dekker Inc., USA, pp. 248250.
Price, J., Catriona, S., Welsh, E.M., Waran, N.K., 2003. Preliminary evalution of a behaviour-based system for
assessment of post-operative pain in horses following arthroscopic surgery. Vet. Anaesth. Analg. 30 (3), 124
137.
Rousing, T., Bonde, M., Sorensen, J.T., 2001. Aggregating welfare indicators into an operational welfare
assessment system: a bottom-up approach. Acta Agr. Scand. A: An Suppl. 30, 5357.
Rushen, J., Taylor, A.A., de Passille, A.M., 1999. Domestic animals fear of humans and its effect on their welfare.
Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 65 (3), 285303.
Scott, E.M., Fitzpatrick, J.L., Nolan, A.M., Reid, J., Wiseman, M.L., 2003. Evaluation of welfare state based on
interpretation of multiple indices. Anim. Welfare 12 (4), 457468.
Srensen, J.T., Sande, P., Halberg, N., 2001. Animal welfare as one among several values to be considered at farm
level: the idea of an ethical account for livestock farming.. Acta Agr. Scand. A: An Suppl. 30, 1116.

J.C. Pritchard et al. / Preventive Veterinary Medicine 69 (2005) 265283

283

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, 1998. Enhancing Agriculture in Africa: a role for U.S.
development assistance, OTA-F-356. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, September 1988,
Chapter 10, p. 238.
Whay, H.R., 2002. Locomotion scoring and lameness detection in dairy cattle. In Practice 24 (8), 444449.
Whay, H.R., Main, D.C.J., Green, L.E., Webster, A.J.F., 2003. Assessment of the welfare of dairy cattle by direct
observations and investigation of farm records. Vet. Rec. 153, 197202.
Whay, H.R., Waterman, A.E., Webster, A.J.F., 1997. Associations between locomotion, claw lesions and
nociceptive threshold in dairy heifers during the peri-partum period. Vet. J. 154 (2), 155161.
Wilson, R.T., 2003. The environmental ecology of oxen used for draught power. Agr. Ecosyst. Environ. 97, 2137.
Winckler, C., Willen, S., 2001. The reliability and repeatability of a lameness scoring system for use as an
indicator of welfare in dairy cattle.. Acta Agr. Scand. A: An., Suppl. 30, 103107.
Wood, J.D., Holder, J.S., Main, D.C.J., 1998. Quality assurance schemes. Meat Sci. 49 (Suppl.1), S191S203.
Yousef, M.K., 1991. Physiological responses of the donkey to heat stress. In: Proceedings of the Colloquium on
Donkeys, Mules and Horses in Tropical Agricultural Development, Edinburgh, 36 September, p. 96.
Zanella, R., Heleski, C., Zanella, A.J., 2003. Assessment of the Michigan State University equine welfare
intervention strategy (MSU-EQWIS-ACTION) using Brazilian draught horses as a case study. In: Proceedings of the 37th International Congress of the International Society for Applied, Ethology, Abano Terme, Italy,
2428 June, p. 192.
Zenker, W., Josseck, H., Geyer, H., 1995. Histological and physical assessment of poor hoof horn quality in
Lipizzaner horses and a therapeutic trial with biotin and a placebo. Equine Vet. J. 27 (3), 183191.